BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


S-i  , 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS   TO   THE   FEDERAL 
WATER-POWER  ACT 


HEARING 


BEFORE  THE 


BANCROFT  LJBRAJW 


SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  WATEK  POWEK 
OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  KEPEESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS 

THIRD  SESSION 
ON 

H.  R.  14469,  H.  R.  14760,  and  H.  R.  15126 


29414 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1921 


SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON   WATER  POWER. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

SIXTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS. 

JOHN  J.  ESCH,  Wisconsin,  Chairman. 

NICHOLAS  J.  SINNOTT,  Oregon.  THETUS  W.  SIMS,  Tennessee. 
GILBERT  N.  HAUGEN,  Iowa.                              •      SCOTT  FERRIS,  Oklahoma. 

EDWARD  L.  HAMILTON,  Michigan.  FRANK  E.  DOREMUS,  Michigan. 

ADDISON  T.  SMITH,  Idaho.  EDWARD  T.  TAYLOR.  Colorado. 

JAMES  C.  MCLAUGHLIN,  Michigan.  GORDON  LEE,  Georgia. 

SAMUEL  E.  WINSLOW,  Massachusetts.  ALBEN  W.  BARKLEY,  Kentucky. 

JOHN  A.  ELSTON,  California.  JOHN  E.  RAKER,  California. 

SYDNEY  ANDERSON,  Minnesota.  EZEKIEL  S.  CANDLER,  Mississippi 

GEORGE  ESCH,  Clerk. 


O   Co 


CONTENTS. 


Statement  of— 

Hon.  John  Barton  Payne 5 

Hon.  Newton  D.  Baker 18 

Hon.  Edwin  T.  Meredith 27 

Mr.  Henry  J.  Pierce 31-40-45 

Mr.  Stephen  T.  Mather 39-73 

Hon.  John  J.  Rogers 45 

Mr.  J.  Horace  McFarland 46 

Mr.  William  C.  Gregg 52 

Mr.  Charles  W.  Kellogg 65 

Mr.  E.  Elmer  Smith 69 

Mr.  O.  C.  Merrill 73 

Mr.  Millard  F.  Bowen 117 

Letters  submitted  by — 

Mr.  Albert  L.  Scott 121 

Mr.  M.  O.  Leighton 122 

Mr.  J.  H.  Levering 122 

San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce 125 

Miss  Harlean  James 126 

Mr.  T.  Gilbert  Pearson 126 

Mr.  Robert  Sterling  Yard 127 

Mr.  Harris  A .  Reynolds 129 

Mr.  John  J.  Harris 130 

Financing  water  powers 130 

Lake  Yellowstone  project 133 

3 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER 

ACT. 


SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  WATER  POWER, 

HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tlmrsdo.y,  January  6,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  John  J.  Esch  (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.     The  Select 
Committee  on  Water  Power  has  been  called  this  morning  to  consider 
H.  R.  14469,  introduced  by  myself,  exempting  from  the  provisions 
of  the  water-power  act  national  parks  and  monuments;  H.  R.  14760, 
introduced  by  Congressman  Rogers,  of  Massachusetts,  having  a  like 
purpose,  confining  the  matter,  however,  to  water  power  in  national 
ks;  and  H.  R.  15126,  introduced  by  myself,  relating  more  par- 
ticularly  to  the  personnel  and  the  establishment  of  an  additional 
•  personnel  for  the  Federal  Power  Commission. 

•^  We  have  present  with  us  this  morning  the  three  Secretaries  con- 
LOstituting  the  Federal  Power  Commission.  In  what  order  do  the 
^Secretaries  desire  to  be  heard  ? 

O    Secretary  BAKER.  We  would  like   to  have  you  hear  Mr.   Payne 
</>first, 
jj5     The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  very  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Payne. 

^STATEMENT  OF  HON,  JOHN  BARTON  PAYNE,  SECRETARY 
^  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

to  Secretary  PAYNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  general  subject  of  water 
CCpower  will  be  dealt  with  by  the  chairman  of  the  commission,  Secre- 
Stary  Baker.  The  particular  matter  that  I  thought  you  wanted  to 

thear  from  me  about  was  House  bill  14469,  introduced  by  the  chair- 
__man  of  this  committee. 

CD  When  the  water-power  bill  was  passed  and  went  to  the  President 
for  signature  it  was  sent  to  the  different  departments  affected;  I 
called  the  attention  of  the  President  to  the  fact  that  it  placed  the 
national  parks  and  monuments  at  the  disposition  of  the  W^ater 
Power  Commission,  and  that  my  view  was  that  that  should  not  be; 
that  jurisdiction  over  the  parks  and  monuments  should  be  retained 
bv  the  Congress,  and  I  wrote  the  President  on  the,  4th  of  June  to  that 
effect. 

There  was  a  great  deal  of  desire  on  the  part  of  the  country  for  the 
signing  of  that  bill,  and  I  was  called  upon  by  Senator  Jones,  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  of  the  Senate,  and  Senator 
Walsh.  Then  I  conferred  with  Senator  Underwood  and  with  a  few 
other  gentlemen.  The  House  had  adjourned,  but  I  reached  Congress- 
man Mondell.  The  result  was  that  Senator  Jones  wrote  a  letter, 
proposing  that  the  bill  be  amended  to  meet  the  objection.,  which  I 
have  here.  Do  you  want  me  to  read  it  ? 

5 


6  PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO   THE   FEDERAL   WATER-POWER   ACT. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  It  is  addressed  to  me  as  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior and  dated  June  9,  and  reads  as  follows: 

The  water-power  bill  awaits  the  President's  signature  to  become  law.  I  under- 
stand your  objection  to  his  signing  it  is  because  our  national  parks  are  embraced  within 
its  scope.  This  bill  is  so  important  at  this  time  that  its  failure  to  become  a  law  would 
in  my  judgment,  be  little  short  of  a  calamity.  Hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  are 
awaiting  its  enactment  to  go  into  enterprises  that  will  save  coal,  start  industry,  and 
increase  production. 

If  it  does  not  become  a  law  now,  this  season  will  be  lost  and  these  large  works  be 
greatly  delayed,  and  some  may  be  abandoned. 

Your  objection  has  not  been  heretofore  made,  although  this  legislation  has  been 
pending  for  many  years.  I  admit  its  force.  On  reflection  I  believe  it  is  better  not 
to  allow  permits  to  develop  the  water  power  in  these  great  national  beauty  spots 
except  by  special  act  of  Congress  in  each  case.  Therefore,  if  this  bill  should  become 
a  law,  as  I  trust  it  may,  I  assure  you  that  as  chairman  of  the  Commerce  Committee  of 
the  Senate,  I  will  gladly  introduce  a  bill  in  the  opening  of  the  next  session  of  Congress 
to  repeal  this  pro-vision  of  the  act  and  do  all  in  my  power  to  get  it  passed. 

I  believe  the  Congress  will  act  promptly  upon  it. 

I  trust  that  with  this  assurance  you  will  feel  justified  in  withdrawing  your  objection 
and  urge  the  President  to  sign  the  bill. 
Most  sincerely,  yours, 

W.  L.  JONES. 

I  then  wrote  to  the  President,  as  follows: 

JUNE  9,  1920. 
Subject:  Water-power  bill. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  I'KKSIDKNT:  Supplementing  my  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  I  have 
had  a  conference  with  Senator  Jones,  chairman  of  the  Commerce  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  and  Senator  Walsh  of  Montana,  who  has  been  pressing  a  project  involving 
the  Yellowstone  Park.  The  result  is  embodied  in  a  letter  herewith  from  Senator 
Jones  to  the  effect  that  when  Congress  reconvenes  he  will  introduce  and  press  for 
early  passage  a  hill  repealing  the  park  feature  of  the  water-power  bill. 

Senator  Walsh  fully  concurs,  and  while  they  do  not  assume  to  speak  for  the  Senate, 
they  express  the  view  that  since  the  western  Senators  make  this  arrangement  as  a 
basis  upon  which  I  may  recommend  to  you  the  signing  of  the  bill,  that  we  may  safely 
rely  upon  the  passage  of  such  an  amendment. 

I  stated  the  arrangement  to  Senator  Underwood  on  the  telephone.  lie  authorized 
me  to  say  to  you  that  he  thought  you  could  safely  rely  upon  this,  and  that  the  southern 
Senators  and  Representatives,  so  far  as  he  could  speak  for  them,  would  cordially 
cooperate  to  this  end  and  he  hoped  you  would  sign  the  bill. 

In  view  of  this  I  recommend  that  the  bill  be  signed. 

The  bill  was  signed,  pursuant  to  that  understanding. 

As  to  the  necessity  of  preserving  the  National  Parks  I  have  dis- 
cussed that  in  my  annual  report,  and  if  you  will  allow  me  to  have 
that  read  into  the  record  I  think  it  will  cover  all  that  I  care  to  say, 
Mr.  Chairman,  unless  you  have  some  questions  you  want  to  ask. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

(The  matter  referred  to  follows:) 

THE  PRESERVATION  OF  OUR  NATIONAL  PARKS  AND  MONUMENTS. 

This  is  a  vital  question. 

With  the  rapid  settlement  and  changing  conditions  of  the  West,  the  wisdom  of 
creating  national  parks  and  permanently  setting  apart  as  natural  museums,  pleasure 
grounds,  and  game  preserves  such  wonder  lands  as  the  Yellowstone  Park,  the  Grand 
Canyon,  the  Yosemite,  the  Sequoia  (with  its  gigantic  trees),  and  other  national  parks 
and  monuments,  and  preserving  for  the  present  and  for  future  generations  these  won- 
derful works  of  nature,  and  the  wild  animals  and  birds,  so  plentiful  in  the  early  days 
but  now  so  scarce,  is  increasingly  evident. 

The  conflict  between  the  demands  of  commerce  and  the  preservation  of  these  won- 
der places  involves  constant  vigilance.  In  my  view  their  preservation  is  of  the  first 
importance.'  It  should  be  the  settled  policy  of  the  country,  regardless  of  any  question 
of  utility,  that  when  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Congress  national  parks  or  monuments  are 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.  7 

definitely  set  apart  they  must  be  preserved  in  their  integrity,  forever  free  from  any 
form  of  commercialization. 

If  this  principle  is  not  recognized,  and  commercialization  in  any  form  is  allowed  to 
creep  in,  it  will  be  only  a  question  of  time  when  our  Wild  West  will  be  only  a  memory 
and  the  big  game  of  our  country  will  be  extinct,  and  these  places  and  objects,  now  so 
wonderful,  will  be  seriously  and  permanently  injured. 

It  may  be  well  to  note,  however,  that  if  the  argument  of  utility  were  permissible, 
there  is  usually  a  ready  answer.  The  water  does  not  remain  in  the  park,  and  may 
ordinarily  be  stored  to  as  good  or  better  advantage  outside  the  park.  This  is  well 
illustrated  in  the  proposition  to  dam  the  Yellowstone  River  at  the  outlet  of  Yellow- 
stone Lake. 

The  Geological  Survey  maintains  a  gauging  station  on  the  Yellowstone  River  near 
the  Canyon  Hotel,  about  13  miles  below  the  outlet  of  the  lake.  The  average  daily 
flow  at  this  station,  based  on  complete  records  for  23  months,  is  3,110  second-feet. 
There  are  five  small  streams  emptying  into  the  river  in  the  13  miles  between  the  pro- 
posed dam  site  at  the  outlet  of  the  lake  and  this  station;  hence  the  flow  at  the  outlet 
of  the  lake  is  obviously  much  less  than  at  this  station. 

A  station  is  also  maintained  on  the  Yellowstone  River  outside  of  the  park,  at  Corwin 
Springs,  Mont.,  near  the  head  of  the  Yankee  Jim  Canyon,  some  8  miles  below  Gardi- 
ner. The  average  daily  flow  at  this  point,  shown  by  measurements  made  during  the 
same  period,  is  5,870  second -feet. 

The  volume  of  water  in  the  river  outside  the  park  is,  therefore,  nearly  or  quite 
twice  as  great  as  at  the  outlet  of  the  lake.  Indeed,  based  upon  these  measurements 
and  the  area  of  land  drained,  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  department  that  it  is  more 
than  twice  as  great.  This  increased  volume  is  due  to  the  fact  that  between  the 
gauging  station" near  Canyon  Hotel  and  Corwin  Springs,  the  Lamar  River,  Gardiner 
River,  Tower  Creek,  Trout  Creek,  Alum  Creek,  Otter  Creek,  Sour  Creek,  Broad  Creek. 
Deep  Creek,  Hellroaring  Creek,  Antelope  Creek,  and  other  small  streams  empty  into 
the  Yellowstone.  A  much  better  site  for  a  dam — due  not  onlv  to  the  greater  volume 
of  water,  but  to  its  location,  its  deep,  narrow  rock  walls— is  Yankee  Jim  Canyon. 

THE    FLOOD-CONTROL   ARGUMENT. 

An  argument,  quite  impressive  until  analyzed,  is  that  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Yellow- 
stone Lake  is  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  flood  damage  from  high  water  in  the  lower 
Yellowstone  Valley  during  flood  seasons;  but.  like  the  argument  of  utility,  this  is 
readily  answered. 

(a)  Yellowstone  Lake  is  a  natural  reservoir.  It  is  on  high  ground,  7,741  feet  alti- 
tude, and  the  drainage  area,  compared  with  other  sections  of  the  park,  is  more  restricted 
and  less  subject  to  flood  waters;  the  river  from  the  outlet  of  the  lake  to  the  Upper 
Falls  is  placid  and  little  subject  to  sudden  rise.  In  May,  1020,  for  instance,  when  the 
Lamar  and  other  tributaries  were  raging,  Yellowstone  Lake  was  covered  with  ice. 

(6)  The  volume  of  the  water  in  the  lake  which  would  be  affected  by  a  dam  at  its 
outlet  is,  as  previously  shown,  only  half  as  large  as  the  volume  outside  the  park. 

(c)  A  conclusive  argument,  however,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  dam  built  in  Yankee 
Jim  Canyon  would  not  only  control  such  overflow  as  comes  from  the  lake  but  the 
larger  volume  from  the  Lamar  and  other  tributaries  of  the  Yellowstone. 

The  flood-control  argument,  therefore,  demonstrates  that  the  dam  should  be  out- 
side the  park,  and  not  at  the  outlet  of  the  lake. 

PENDING    PROJECTS   FOR    STORAGE    DAMS    IN    YELLOWSTONE     PARK. 

A  number  of  projects  looking  toward  using  Yellowstone  Park  for  storage  of  water 
for  reclamation  purposes  have  been  proposed : 

1.  The  Idaho  project. — The  first  involved  the  use  by  Idaho  people  of  Lakes  Yellow- 
stone, Shoshone,  Lewis,  and  Heart,  the  four  largest  lakes  of  the  park,  and  the  Falls 
River  Basin  in  the  southwest  corner  of  the  park,  and  under  a  permit  granted  by  the 
department  before  I  became  Secretary  some  surveys  were  made  of  Yellowstone  'Lake 
and  the  Falls  River  Basin.  The  proposition  is  to  build  a  dam  at  the  outler  of  Yellow- 
stone Lake  for  storage  to  hold  the  level  of  the  lake  at  approximately  its  high-water 
mark,  the  water  thus  stored  to  be  conveyed  by  tunnel  through  the  Continental  Divide 
to  Heart  Lake,  thence  into  Snake  River,  to  be  used  in  the  neighborhood  of  Twin  Falls, 
Idaho;  and  to  use  Shoshone  and  Lewis  Lakes  as  reservoirs  for  the  storage,  the  water 
also  to  be  used  in  Idaho;  to  construct  two  dams  in  the  Falls  River  Basin,  erroneously 
claimed  to  be  a  swamp,  the  water  to  be  stored  there  for  use  in  the  vicinity  of  Idaho 
Falls  and  north  thereof.  Only  the  Falls  River  Basin  part  of  this  project  has  been 
pressed. 


, 


8  PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT. 

2.  The  Montana  project. — An  association  composed  of  Montana  people  has  been 
organized  to  secure  the  right  to  build  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Yellowtone  Lake,  the 
water  to  be  used  for  irrigation  in  southeastern  Montana.  At  first  there  was  rivalry 
between  Idaho  and  Montana,  but  this  appears  to  have  been  composed.  It  is  urgecl 
that  it  is  only  desired  to  build  the  dam  6  feet  high.  The  most  casual  inspection  of 
the  shores  of  the  lake  shows  that  any  material  raising  of  the  water  would  overflow 
many  wonderful  hot  springs,  as  well  as  considerable  timber  areas;  the  timber  in 
places  comes  down  to  the  water's  edge. 

If  the  precedent  of  using  the  park  is  established  and  a  6-foot  dam  built  and  the  water 
devoted  to  reclamation  or  power  uses,  increasing  demands  will  speedily  arise  as  other 
lands  come  under  cultivation  or  need  for  more  power  arises,  and  the  demand  for  a 
higher  dam  and  more  water  will  arise  and  will  be  well-nigh  irresistible.  A  dam  at 
the  place  suggested  of  25  feet  could  be  built  and  the  question  would  be  "Why  not"? 
The  park  having  been  opened  up,  it  would  then  be  only  a  relative  question.  Such 
a  dam  would  submerge  9,000  acres  of  timber,  meadow,  lake  beach,  and  small  lakes— 
chiefly  in  the  Pelican  and  Upper  Yellowstone  Valleys,  only  a  few  feet  above  the  level 
of  Lake  Yellowstone.  The  dam  would  submerge  the  small  lakes  and  ruin  the  hot 
springs  at  the  thumb  of  the  lake.  The  I'ppor  Yellowstone  Valley,  which  would  be 
submerged,  is  our  best  moose  range. 

THE    FALLS    HIVER   PROJECT. 

This  involves  a  section  of  the  park  now  practically  inaccessible.  Claimants  urge 
that  its  conversion  from  a  marsh  to  a  storage  lake  by  the  building  of  dams  would 
enhance  its  beauty.  Fortunately  during  the  summer  it  was  visited  and  photographed 
by  exploring  parties  and  found  to  possess  wondrous  beauty — containing  meadows 
(fine  moose  pasture),  forests,  lakes,  trout  streams,  and  a  number  of  beautiful  water- 
falls, ranging  from  130  feet  to  380  feet. 

The  bill  authorizing  this  project  (S.  3895)  passed  the  Senate  April  (i,  1920,  appar- 
ently without  opposition.  While  in  the  House  the  purport  of  the  bill  became  known, 
serious  opposition  appeared,  and  it  did  not  pass,  but  is  still  pending. 

DANGER  TO   THE    FALLS. 

The  water  stored  in  Yellowstone  Lake,  in  the  case  of  the  Montana  project,  if  not 
used  until  the  late  summer  would  lessen  the  flow  over  the  falls  during  the  early  sum- 
mer months,  when  the  park  is  filled  with  visitors.  The  Idaho  project  proposed  to 
divert  the  surplus  water  from  the  lake  so  it  would  not  go  over  the  falls.  It  is  probable 
that  such  interference  with  the  normal  flow  would  injure  Ui<>  falls  and  materially 
decrease  the  volume  of  water  in  the  canyon. 

LEWIS    AND    SHOSHONE    LAKES. 

Lewis  and  Shoshone  Lakes  are  both  in  well-timbered  forests,  and  their  shores  slope 
upward  very  gradually;  the  rise  is  almost  imperceptible  over  an  area  of  several  miles; 
vast  quantities  of  timber  would  be  destroyed;  and  when  the  \valor  would  be  drawn 
out,  shallow  water  or  mud  flats  would  greet  the  visitor. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  there  any  applications  now  pend- 
ing under  this  Water  Power  Bill  for  rights  in  the  national  parks  ( 

Secretary  PAYNE.  The  secretary  of  the  commission,  Mr.  Merrill, 
is  here,  and  he  can  give  you  that  information  better  than  I  can.  but 
some  applications  have  been  received. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  view  that  this  provision  of  the  bill — I  am 
just  trying  to  find  out  if  there  is  any  real  objection  to  the  enforcing 
of  the  law  as  it  now  stands  under  this  provision,  that  licenses  shall 
be  issued  within  any  reservation  only  after  a  finding  by  the  Commis- 
sion that  the  license  will  not  interfere  or  be  inconsistent  with  the 
purpose  for  which  such  reservations  were  created  or  acquired  and 
shall  contain  such  conditions  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Department 
under  whose  supervision  such  reservation  falls,  shall  deem  necessary 
for  the  adequate  protection  and  utilization  of  such  reservation.  J 
just  wondered  whether  or  not  if  that  was  strictly  enforced  any  one 
could  get  into  the  parks  at  all. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO   THE   FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT.  9 

Secretary  PAYNE.  That  would  depend  entirely  upon  the  view  of 
the  persons  charged  with  that  duty.  There  are  many  people  who 
think  that  the  utilitarian  part  should  be  controlling,  regardless  of 
the  effect  upon  the  park.  In  other  words,  they  think  that  the  use 
of  the  water  in  some  form  is  better  for  the  country  than  the  park  use, 
and,  therefore,  you  have  the  personal  point  of  view  of  the  persons 
charged  under  that  act  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 

I  ought  to  have  said  that  upon  the  organization  of  the  Water 
Power  Commission  we  adopted  a  resolution  that  we  would  not  en- 
tertain, pending  this  question  before  the  Congress,  any  applications 
for  permits  in  any  national  park. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  up  to  date,  even  though  the  applications  have 
been  filed  under  this  provision,  no  one  has  a  right  inchoate,  a  right 
that  he  could  proceed  under  to  get  a  permit  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  None  whatever.  We  have  declined  to  receive 
such  applications. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So,  up  to  this  time  the  integrity  of  the  parks  is  abso- 
lutely protected? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  would  it  meet  the  conditions  and 
the  understanding  at  the  time  the  power  act  was  signed,  if  national 
parks  and  monuments  w^ere  limited  to  their  existing  boundaries  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  think  so,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  the  Congress 
has  control  of  the  subject,  and  when  you  create  a  new  park  you  can 
then  make  such  disposition  of  this  question  as  seems  wise.  My  in- 
sistence is  that  when  the  Congress  creates  a  national  park,  Congress 
alone  should  determine  whether  any  other  use  shall  be  made  of  the 
park  or  any  part  thereof. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  think  that  Congress 
is  better  able  to  determine  a  technical  question  of  that  kind  than  the 
Water  Power  Commission  acting  upon  the  advice  of  engineers  and 
surveyors  who  go  upon  the  ground  and  make  a  report  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  It  is  not  a  technical  question. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  certainly  is  technical  as  to  the  character  of 
the  land. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  The  moment  you  put  it  on  the  ground  of  a  mere 
technical  question,  you  destroy  the  integrity  of  the  park,  because 
you  can  always  get  engineers  and  experts  who  will  say  that  the  park 
will  not  be  injured  and  that  the  utilitarian  use  is  greater  than  the 
park  use. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Upon  what  information  would  the  Congress 
act  as  to  the  advisability  of  utilizing  any  waste  water  within  a  national 
park  ?  None  of  them  have  visited  the  particular  section  I  have  in 
mind,  and  how  would  Congress  act  intelligently,  unless  they  had  a 
report  from  engineers  and  surveyors  who  would  be  upon  the  land 
and  make  report  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Congress  has  every  possible  facility  for  getting 
information. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  only  the  same  facilities  that  the  Cabinet 
would  have. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  am  not  saying  that  the  Water  Power  Com- 
mission could  not  get  the  information. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Is  it  not  rather  unusual  for  three  members  of 
the  Cabinet  to  attempt  to  discredit  themselves  in  handling  a  matter 


10        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

of  this  kind,  and  put  it  in  the  hands  of  Congress,  where  the  Members 
and  Senators  are  not  able  to  secure  first-hand  information  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  You  are  entirely  wrong.  There  is  no  sort  of 
discredit.  This  question  involves  a  fundamental  question  involving 
the  policy  of  the  United  States,  and  Congress  having  passed  the 
water-power  bill  and  placed  the  parks  and  monuments  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Water  Power  Commission,  it  may  be  regarded  by 
members  of  that  commission  as  an  instruction  that  if  it  appears  that 
the  utilitarian  benefits  may  result,  then  it  would  become  the  duty  of 
the  commission  to  grant  permits. 

Now,  1  say  that  that  is  a  fundamental  question  of  policy  which 
the  Congress  itself  should  in  each  case  determine. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  And  yet  you  must  admit  that  Congress  has 
no  way  to  advise  itself? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  do  not  admit  so.  Congress  has  every  means 
of  getting  information. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  They  can  not  visit  these  remote  sections,  and 
they  must  act  on  the  information  furnished  by  engineer  and  other 
trusted  employees. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  to  Heaven  in  order  to 
get  information  about  it.  We  know  it  is  a  desirable  place. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  urn  in  favor  of  this  bill  because  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  bill  was  signed  but  it  seems  to  me  it  would 
be  very  unusual  to  want  to  impose  upon  the  Congress,  composed  of 
nearly  500  men,  a  matter  of  utilization  of  the  waste  water  of  a  park 
for  any  purpose,  which  information  and  action  must  be  based  upon 
an  examination  upon  the  ground  by  some  experts  who  would  make  a 
report  to  the  Water  Power  Commission  and  on  which  report  the 
commission  would  act. 

Secretary  PAYNK.  Congress,  when  it  creates  a  park,  necessarily 
considers  the  whole  question,  and  it  has  the  information  at  its  service, 
which  is  at  the  disposition  of  the  Water  Power  Commission,  at  the 
disposition  of  the  Interior  Department,  and  of  all  of  the  persons 
affected  pro  and  con.  For  instance,  a  man  came  to  me  the  other 
day  and  proposed  that  the  Grand  Canyon  should  be  used  as  a  reser- 
voir for  water. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Of  course,  no  one  would  consider  such  a 
proposition  as  that. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  That  man  was  considering  it.  1  want  to  make 
it  difficult  for  people  to  destroy  these  ])arks. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  So  do  I,  Mr.  Secretary;  absolutely  so,  and  if 
there  is  any  project  that  would  in  any  way  injure  any  scenic  attrac- 
tion in  a  national  park  I  would  be  opposed  to  it,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  very  unusual  for  the  Government  to  refuse  to  allow  the 
people  to  use  water  which  is  going  to  waste. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  The  water  does  not  remain  in  the  national  parks. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  No,  that  is  what  I  am  saying. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  If  you  will  be  good  enough  to  read  my  report 
you  will  see  that  in  the  case  of  the  Yellowstone  there  is  an  admirable 
place  for  a  dam  at  the  Yankee  Jim  Canyon;  that  the  volume  of 
water  there  is  twice  as  large  as  at  the  Lake  in  the  Yellowstone  Park, 
and  that  when  you  have  analyzed  the  question  to  its  bottom  you 
will  find  that  it  is  only  a  question  of  expense,  because  the  land  which 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        11 

would  be  used  in  the  park  as  a  reservoir  does  not  cost  the  project 
anything. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  And  then  you  want  Congress  to  determine 
whether  or  not  that  sort  of  project  should  be  utilized  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  think  Congress  would  not  waste  very  much 
time  on  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  No,  I  think  probably  that  is  true.  I  would 
not  support  any  proposition  of  that  kind,  but  what  I  am  surprised 
about  is  that  the  three  members  of  the  Cabinet,  executive  officers, 
are  unwilling  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  determining  whether 
or  not  the  waste  water  should  be  utilized  in  the  national  parks. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  have  said  already  that  it  is  not  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  expediency;  it  is  not  a  question  of  determining  by  experts 
whether  this  or  that  result  might  follow;  it  is  a  borad,  national  ques- 
tion of  policy  which  the  Congress  ought  to  take  the  responsibility 
of  determining,  and  I  repeat  that  if  this  water-power  bill  is  not 
amended,  commissions  may  come  wfro  will  regard  the  act  creating 
the  commission  as  an  instruction  requiring  them,  if  it  appears  expe- 
dient from  a  practical  standpoint,  to  permit  the  use  of  the  water  in 
the  national  parks. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  you  are  afraid  to  trust  the  judgment 
of  three  men  prominent  enough  in  public  life  to  be  selected  as  mem- 
bers of  the  CaMnet  ? 

Secretary  P^NE.  I  leave  that  entirely  to  you.  You  know  them 
just  as  well  as  I  do.  I  prefer  to  trust  the  Congress. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  prefer  to  trust  Congress,  Mr.  Secretary, 
because  there  has  been  a  propaganda  organized  and  conducted  within 
the  last  six  months  over  this  country  which  has  thrown  a  scare  into 
every  Member  of  the  House  and  every  Member  of  the  Senate,  and 
that  propaganda  is  based  absolutely  on  false  statements. 

I  have  a  circular  here  sent  out  by  the  head  of  one  organization, 
containing  a  photograph  of  the  Colonnade  Falls,  in  which  it  states 
under  that  photograph  that  "this  and  40  other  waterfalls,  cascades, 
and  hot  springs  will  be  destroyed"  if  the  proposed  reservoir  in  the 
southwestern  corner  of  Yellowstone  National  Park  is  established. 

Now,  when  a  Member  of  Congress  gets  that  circular  he  assumes 
that  the  statements  are  true,  and  yet  they  are  absolutely  false;  that 
sort  of  information  has  been  disseminated  throughout  this  country 
and  has  scared  the  Members  of  Congress.  Many  Members  of  Congress 
have  come  to  me  within  the  last  two  or  three  weeks  who  were  in 
favor  of  the  Fall  River  Basin  project  last  session  who  now  say: 
"Now,  Smith,  we  are  in  favor  of  this  proposition — we  were  in  favor 
of  it  before — but  my  people  at  home  are  so  aroused  that  it  would  be 
political  suicide  for  me  to  vote  for  it  and  I  of  course  will  not  be  able 
to  vote  for  it." 

So  that  is  the  reason  that  those  opposing  the  Fall  River  Basin 
want  to  take  from  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  the  duty 
of  deciding  this  proposition  and  put  it  into  the  hands  of  a  great  num- 
ber of  men  who  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  investigate  it,  but  will 
be  guided  in  their  action  by  these  false  statements,  which  have  been 
disseminated  all  over  the  country.  Now,  if  Colonnade  Falls  or  any 
other  waterfall  in  the  Yellowstone  National  Park  would  be  injured, 
I  would  not  be  in  favor  of  the  utilization  of  the  waste  waters  of  that 


12        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

section  of  the  park,  and  if  the  engineers  report  show  that  any  water- 
fall, any  hot  springs,  or  any  cascade  would  be  disturbed  in  the  least, 
I  would  not  advocate  the  bill  for  a  minute. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Let  me  say  first  about  the  timidity  of  Congress. 
Congress  is  accustomed  to  propaganda.  I  do  not  know  of  any  body 
in  the  world  so  capable  of  measuring  the  value  of  propaganda  as  the 
Congress.  So  that  I  do  not  think  the  Members  of  Congress  are 
terrified  because  of  some  propaganda. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  ask  any  one  of  them,  and  they  will  tell 
you  they  are  terrified  and  are  afraid  to  go  home,  almost,  if  they  should 
vote  for  this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  see  the  relevancy  of  that. 

Secretary  PAYNK.  1  want  to  make  an  observation  about  what  you 
said  about  the  Idaho  project,  because  that  project  was  represented 
to  me — 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  The  Fall  River  Basin  project,  not  the  Yel- 
lowstone Lake  project. 

Secretary  PAYXE.  That  was  represented  to  me  as  a  swamp.  Now. 
since  that  question  came  up  two  parties  have  gone  thoroughly 
through  that  section  of  the  park.  It  is  not  a  swamp  ;ni(l  there  are 
many  admirable  waterfalls,  and  if  you  want  me  to  1  will  send  the 
chairman,  for  the  use  of  this  committee,  50  photography  of  that 
section. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Oh,  yes.  Mr.  Secretary,  thoso^>hotographs  I 
have  here.  They  were  not  taken  in  that  section  of  the  park  at  all. 

Secretarv  PAYXK.  Have  von  ever  been  through  the  Fall  River 
Basin  * 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  have  heen.  I  went  in  there  on  the  7th  day 
of  August,  at  a  great  deal  of  discomfort,  and  visited  that  Fall  River 
Basin,  and  the  information  that  I  have  from  personal  observation 
convinces  me  that  the  report  of  the  Director  of  the  (ieological  Survey 
in  1878,  in  which  he  says  that  the  basin  is  well  nigh  impassable  be- 
cause of  the  "swampy,  springy  nature  of  the  soil"  is  correct. 

Secretary  PAYNE  (interposing).  Now.  if  this  committee  wants  to 
know  what  those  facts  are.  two  parties  have  boon  through  that  section 
of  the  park  during  the  last  summer,  and  von  can  call  them  here  and 
get  the  facts. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Wo  1.1.  would  you  prefer  their  statements  to 
the  statements  of  your  own  officials,  men  of  your  own  department? 

Secretary  PAYXK.  That  was  a  verv  long  while  ago,  and  I  do  not 
know  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  made.  1  do  know  that 
sometimes  things  got  into  reports  that  are  not  absolutely  accurate: 
but  here  are  gentlemen  who  at  their  own  expense  went  through  this 
section  of  the  park,  took  many  photographs,  and  they  are  men  of 
reputation  and  standing. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Why  should  we  accept  the  opinion  of  a  pri- 
vate citizen  who  is  prejudiced  instead  of  an  officer  of  the  Govern- 
ment ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Why  should  you  not  accept  an  opinion  of  a 
private  citizen,  if  he  is  a  reputable  man  ? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Because  he  is  prejudiced.  I  know  to  whom 
you  make  reference.  I  was  in  there  myself;  surveyors  have  been  in 
there  who  will  testify,  and  if  their  report  shows  that  any  portion  of 
the  scenic  attractions  of  Yellowstone  National  Park  are  to  be  ruined, 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT         13 

or  even  impaired,  by  the  construction  of  this  reservoir  I  would  not 
be  in  favor  of  it  for  a  minute,  any  more  than  you  would  be  in  favor  of 
it;  but  I  contend  that  those  people  living  over  in  eastern  Idaho, 
whose  crops  are  burning  up  during  July  and  August,  are  entitled  to 
that  waste  water. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Now,  when  you  come  to  consider  what  we  call 
the  Smith  bill,  or  now,  if  you  will,  we  want  to  give  you  all  the  facts. 
Gentlemen  who  spent  weeks  in  there— not  a  single  day,  as  perhaps 
you  did,  but  weeks — and  have  got  photographs— 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Have  these  parties  filed  any  report 
in  writing  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  have  a  written  report. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  they  present  their  report  and  make  it  a 
part  of  the  hearing  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  They  did  that  of  their  own  account.  One  of 
them  is  here  now  and  will  give  you  the  facts. 

Mr.  MATHER.  Would  it  not  be  well,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  indicate  that 
this  is  a  matter  of  an  irrigation  reservoir?  Would  it  not  be  well  if 
Mr.  Smith  made  that  point,  that  this  is  an  irrigation  reservoir  and  not 
a  question  involving  water  power  ? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  is  not  a  water  power  but  I  am  just  speak- 
ing of  the  danger  in  this  legislation  of  throwing  everything  onto  Con- 
gress instead  of  allowing  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  to 
administer  the  law  and  determine  whether  or  not  these  projects 
would  be  injurious  to  the  parks. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  just  want  to  clarify  this  matter  for  myself  and  for 
Mr.  Smith.  When  this  bill  was  first  before  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  the  Idaho  bill,  the  committee  started  to  report  it;  I  objected; 
and  the  committee  did  not  report  the  bill,  although  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  had  made  a  favorable  report. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Not  the  present  Secretary. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No,  sir;  not  at  all.  At  my  request  the  Director  of 
Public  Parks  came  before  the  committee  and  a  public  hearing  was 
had,  testimony  was  taken  in  which  the  Director,  who  is  now  present, 
thought  no  injury  would  be  done,  but  would  like  the  opportunity  to 
investigate. 

Now,  the  executive  department  has  investigated,  and  I  take  it  from 
the  Secretary's  report,  which  I  have  read,  and  from  Mr.  Mather*s 
statement  that  has  been  given  out,  and  undoubtedly  will  be  made 
to-day,  a  change  has  occurred  after  an  investigation  of  the  parks,  and 
I  hope  my  friend,  Congressman  Smith  from  Idaho,  will  not  take  the 
attitude  that  Members  get  scared  over  these  facts ;  but  we  want  the 
information. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  We  want  the  information  but  the  Members 
are  scared;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  feel  I  ought  to  state  that  I  want  to  ask  one  question 
and  then  I  am  through.  Mr.  Secretary,  if  you  have  gone  into  it,  I 
would  like  to  have  you  answer  this  question:  In  the  bill  I  find  this 
language — in  the  law: 

The  work  of  the  commission  shall  be  performed  by  and  through  the  Departments 
of  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture,  and  their  engineering,  technical,  clerical,  and  other 
personnel,  except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  by  law. 


14        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO   THE   FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT. 

Now,  the  proposed  bill  before  the  committee,  on  page  2— 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  You  are  starting  now  on  considera- 
tion of  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Secretary  was  going  to  leave,  and  I  would  just 
like  his  view  on  this  one  matter. 

On  page  2,  lines  9  to  17,  of  H.  R.  15126,  I  find  this  language: 

In  the  performance  of  its  work  the  commission  shall  utilize  in  so  far  as  practicable1 
the  field  offices  and  field  personnel  of  the  Departments  of  War,  Interior,  and  Agricul- 
ture, and  it  is  authorized  to  employ  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  elsewhere  such 
expert,  technical,  clerical,  and  other  personnel  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  performing  the  duties  imposed  by  this  act,  and  as  may  be  from  time  to  time  appro- 
priated for  by  Congress.  The  detail  of  persons  for  such  purpose  from  the  Departments 
of  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture — 

And  so  forth. 

Of  course,  that  is  a  change  of  policy  entirely.  Would  you  give  us 
your  view  of  the  necessity  tor  that  change,  if  you  have  gone  into  it  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Presumably,  all  of  the  clepartments  have  all 
they  can  do,  and  it  is  the  feeling  of  the  commission  that  the  com- 
mission must  be  independent,  so  far  as  its  help  is  concerned,  so  that 
it  can  get  the  information  on  which  it  may  act  by  people  who  are 
under  its  direct  control. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  is  it  your  view  that  better  results  would  be  ac- 
complished, more  efficient  work  would  be  obtained  if  it  was  made  in- 
dependent, as  this  amendment  suggests. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  on  January  3  the  House  adopted  an 
amendment  to  the  sundry  civil  bill,  to  the  section  in  that  bill  pro- 
viding the  appropriation  of  $100,000  for  the  Federal  Power  Commis- 
sion. The  language  of  the  amendment  was  as  follows: 

Provided  further,  That  no  portion  of  this  appropriation  shall  be  available  for  any 
expense  connected  with  the  leasing  of  any  power  facilities  in  any  national  parks  or 
national  monument. 

The  House  has  adopted  that  amendment.  Do  you  think  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  it  has  adopted  the  amendment  and  the  possi- 
bility that  the  Senate  may  indorse  it,  that  we  should,  nevertheless, 
act  upon  this  bill  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  think  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  the  bill  is  broader  than  this 
amendment  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  That  is  only  for  the  specific  appropriation,  and 
the  next  appropriation  bill  might  have  nothing  of  that  sort  in  it. 
I  think  this  is  so  fundamental  that  we  ought  to  start  right  and  deal 
permanently  with  the  subject. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  one  other  question  I  overlooked.  This  bill 
authorizes,  H.  R.  14469,  the  Congress  to  grant  these  permissions, 
It  is  your  judgment,  the  authority  had  better  be  given  to  Congress 
than  to  deny  it  entirely,  so  as  to  leave  it  up  for  future  consideration  \ 

Secretary  PAYNE.  You  can  not  deny  the  Congress  the  power, 
because  Congress  creates  the  parks.  That  [referring  to  the  bill]  is 
not  a  grant  of  power;  it  only  provides  that  no  one  else  may  grant 
permits — no  other  power  may  do  it.  You  can  not  deny  the  power 
to  Congress. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        15 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  chairman  asked  you  a  while  ago 
about  limiting  this  bill  to  the  present  boundaries  of  national  parks. 
I  understood  you  to  say  you  had  no  objection  to  that.  Do  you  think 
it  would  be  wise  to  limit  *it  to  the  present  boundaries?  If  it  is  proper 
that  the  present  parks  should  be  thus  protected,  why  is  not  the  same 
force  to  be  applied  in  the  future  to  any  parks  the  Government  may 
establish  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  The  principle  applies  and  should  apply  to  every 
park,  whether  now  or  hereafter  created.  I  am  told  that  people  who 
are  interested  in  this  subject  feel  that  if  we  should  enlarge  some  of 
the  parks,  as  some  people  think  we  should,  that  it  might  become  a 
very  serious  matter.  The  basis  of  my  remark  to  the  chairman  that 
I  saw  no  particular  objection  to  that  is  that  when  Congress  creates  or 
adds  to  any  park,  Congress  may  then  make  such  provision  with 
respect  to  the  subject  as  it  deems  wise. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  But  if  this  bill  should  limit  it  to  present  boundaries 
and  Congress  in  the  creation  of  new  parks  should  be  silent  upon  the 
subject,  the  presumption  would  be  carried  that  the  water  power 
commission  could  do  with  those  extended  or  new  parks  just  what 
you  do  not  think  it  ought  to  do  with  these  that  now  exist. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Right,  but  I  assume  Congress  would  not  be 
silent. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  understand  that  it  is  your  view 
that  in  proper  cases  these  easements  should  be  granted  by  Congress  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  No. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Or,  is  it  your  view  that  Congress  in  no  case  should 
grant  the  easements? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  would  not  say  in  no  case,  but  I  should  say 
that  under  no  circumstances,  unless  the  situation  is  so  compelling 
that  there  is  no  other  way  to  meet  it,  and  I  illustrate  that  by  saying 
that  the  water  does  not  remain  in  the  park  and  that  the  mere  question 
of  expense  or  of  expediency  is  not  an  argument  in  favor  of  doing  any- 
thing which  might  destroy  or  injuriously  affect  a  national  park, 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  know  of  anybody,  Mr.  Secretary, 
that  wants  to  injure  the  national  parks,  the  scenic  attractions  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  know  of  no  man  who  will  admit  that  he  wants 
to  destroy  a  national  park. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  I  would  like  to  see  that  man. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  But  I  know  a  lot  of  men  who  think  that  these 
people  who  insist  on  preserving  the  national  parks  are  eastern  cranks, 
and  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  idea  of  preserving  them  at  the 
expense  of  losing  the  water  which  could  be  used  for  power  or  recla- 
mation is  an  argument  that  the  western  man  has  no  patience  with. 
Now,  I  deny  that.  I  found  as  genuine  an  interest  in  the  parks  in  the 
West  as  in  the  East. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Undoubtedly  so.     I  think  that  is  true. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  But  I  also  find  that  special  interests  are  press- 
ing for  the  right  to  encroach  upon  the  national  parks  and  their  inter- 
est is  in  the  use  of  the  water  power  and  the  getting  of  free  lands  in 
connection  with  the  use  of  the  water  power,  and  not  in  the  use  of 
the  park  lands  for  park  purposes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  the  misfortune  is,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  we  are  in 
favor  of  the  parks  and  their  utilization  and  maintenance  as  strong  as 
the  people  in  the  East  if  not  more  so. 


16        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-PC  )\VKK   ACT. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Generally  speaking;  yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  we  are  expending  our  money  to  build  the  roads 
to  the  parks  and  from  the  parks  and  maintaining  and  paying  our 
taxes,  but  out  good  friends  in  the  East  are  mighty  tight  on  the  purse 
strings  when  it  comes  to  assisting  in  maintaining  and  building  up  the 
parks,  and  I  hope  they  will  just  loosen  up  a  little  in  the  future. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Secretary,  can  you  imagine  the  attitude 
of  mind  of  a  thousand  farmers  out  on  the  desert,  with  their  crops 
burning  up  and  seeing  the  water  running  past  them,  because  of  the 
fact  that  they  are  not  permitted  at  their  own  expense  to  save  it  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Congressman  Smith,  you  know  that  argument 
is  greatly  overlooked. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  do  not  think  it  is  in  this  particular  case. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Because  I  gave  a  hearing  to  the  Montana  people 
with  reference  to  the  damming  of  the  Yellowstone  River  at  the  outlet 
of  the  Yellowstone  Lake  when  I  was  in  the  Yellowstone  National 
Park  in  July,  and  I  said  to  them,  as  I  point  out  in  my  report — they 
argued  quite  at  length  and  when  they  got  through  I  said — "Now, 
gentlemen,  we  have  hydrographic  stations  in  the  Yellowstone  River 
near  the  Canyon  Hotel,  and  a  like  station  outside  of  the  park  at 
Corwin  Springs.  There  is  twice  as  mueh  water  outside  of  the  park 
at  Corwin  Springs  as  there  is  in  the  park  where  you  ask  a  permit 
to  build  your  dam.  Why  do  vou  not  want  to  build  the  dam  outside 
the  park?" 

Now,  what  do  you  suppose  the  answer  was?  That  the  project 
could  not  afford  to  carry  the  expense.  Why,  I  said,  "That  can  not 
be  true,  because  you  can  build  a  dam  in  the  Yankee  Jim  Canyon 
much  cheaper  than  you  can  on  the  ilat  lands  at  the  outlet  of  the 
Yellowstone  Lake."  "Oh,  but,"  they  said,  "lands  would  have  to  be 
purchased  for  the  reservoir  to  hold  the  water."  "Oh,"  I  said,  "then 
it  is  purely  a  question  of  expense.  In  the  park  the  lands  are  public 
and  do  not  cost  anything,  while  outside  you  would  have  to  buy  the 
land  and  pay  the  damages  for  overflow."  In  my  view  this  argument 
can  not  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  The  parks  were  not  set  aside 
for  power  purposes. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Idaho  project,  Mr. 
Secretary,  it  has  been  demonstrated  by  your  own  engineers  that  there 
are  no  reservoir  sites  outside  of  the  park  that  will  aggregate  more 
than  37,000  acres.  There  are  nine  reservoir  sites  outside,  but  the 
quantity  of  water  that  could  be  conserved  in  these  nine  reservoir 
sites  is  only  37,000  acre-feet,  whereas  in  this  Fall  River  Basin,  200,000 
acre-feet  can  be  conserved  by  simply  building  one  dam. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  have  given  t'he  subject  of  outside  availability 
no  consideration  with  reference  to  the  Idaho  project,  but  if  you 
want  me  to  find  one,  I  will  try. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  should  be  very  pleasecl  if  you  could  find  one, 
because  the  engineers  of  the  Reclamation  Service  tried  to  find  it  and 
did  not  succeed. 

There  is  one  more  question  I  would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Secretary. 
You  know,  the  boundaries  of  the  Yellowstone  National  Park  were 
established  without  surveys  in  1872,  just  simply  a  blanket  reserva- 
tion. Is  it  not  quite  probable  that  there  is  a  lot  of  land  adjoining 
the  Yellowstone  National  Park  that  contains  a  great  many  scenic 
attractions  which  should  be  inside  of  the  boundary  line  of  the  Yellow- 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       17 

stone  Park,  and  is  it  not  quite  likely  that  some  land  in  the  park 
really  haxs  no  scenic  value  and  should  be  outside  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  do  not  know  of  any  inside  that  ought  to  be 
outside,  but  I  do  know  some  outside  that  ought  to  be  inside. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  you  will  admit  that  you  do  not  know 
the  conditions  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  For  instance,  I  want  the  Grand  Tetons  in, 
I  am  very  much  in  favor  of  that. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  think  they  should  be  in. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  And  I  also  want  to  exclude  Jackson  Lake 
when  you  do  that. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  think  that  would  be  a  good  idea,  because 
there  would  be  a  conflict  of  authority  there  in  regard  to  the  water. 
But  you  are  not  ready  to  admit  that  the  Fall  River  Basin  should  be 
outside  of  the  park  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  No ;  nor  will  you,  after  you  hear  these  gentlemen. 

Mr,  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Well,  if  I  am  to  believe  them  in  preference 
to  my  own  observations,  of  course  I  would  not. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Well,  their  opportunities  were  greater  than 
yours. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Will  you  make  any  distinction  between  appro- 
priating water  in  the  park  and  constructing  a  reservoir  therein, 
which  might  be  termed  a  commercialization  of  the  park,  and  the  grant- 
ing of  a  conduit  right  or  a  right  of  way  across  a  park  or  a  portion  of 
the  park  ? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  There  might  be  a  very  material  difference  but 
I  do  not  visualize  just  what  you  have  in  mind. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  park  might  lie  between  adjacent  country 
where  you  are  taking  the  water  from  and  it  may  be  very  inconvenient 
to  go  around  the  park,  and  the  crossing  of  the  park  might  be  a  little 
matter  that  the  commission  might  take  care  of,  a  mere  right"  of  way 
for  a  transmission  line  or  a  ditch  across  a  portion  of  the  park. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  If  the  commission  in  dealing  with  projects  out- 
side of  the  park  should  find  a  situation  of  that  kind,  where  it  would 
not  injure  the  park  and  should  make  a  suggestion  to  Congress, 
Congress  would  not  be  slow  to  deal  with  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  after  all,  Mr.  Secretary,  the  Water 
Power  Commission  will  be  interested  somewhat  in  the  park.  In  the 
utilization  of  water  in  the  national  parks.  And  if  they  should  find 
that  a  park  would  not  be  injured,  in  making  report  to  Congress,  they 
would  probably  accomplish  just  what  you  want  to  accomplish  in 
passing  this  bill  1 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  do  not  know  that  any  situation  such  as  Judge 
Sinnott  suggests  would  ever  arise.  I  do  not  know,  but  if  it  should 
arise,  certainly  the  commission  would  deal  with  it  by  requesting 
the  Congress  to  act. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  in  that  instance,  you  would  rely  upon 
the  judgment  of  the  Water  Power  Commission,  upon  information 
furnished  by  these  experts,  instead  of  upon  Congress"? 

Secretary  PAYNE.  Not  at  all.  Congress  is  not  going  to  put  a 
rubber  stamp  on  any  recommendation  of  that  sort  without  giving 
it  consideration. 

29414—21 2 


18        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO   THE   FEDERAL   WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Oh,  yes;  if  three  cabinet  officers  recommend 
anything  to  Congress  we  pass  it  without  much  trouble. 
Mr.  BARKLEY.  Cabinet — 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho  (interposing) .  Mr.  Secretary- 
Secretary  PAYNE  (interposing).  Even   the    President  has  recom- 
mended certain  things  to  the  House  and  Senate  that  have  not  been 
approved. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Since  you  have  been  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
we  can  not  get  a  bill  through  Congress  affecting  the  public  lands 
unless  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  recommends  it.  If  they  find  the 
Secretary  does  not  recommend  it,  there  is  nothing  doing. 

Secretary  PAYNE.  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  Congress.  I  do  my 
level  best.  [Laughter.] 

Th.e CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  other  questions- 
Mr.  MATHER  (interposing).  Before  the  Secretary  leaves,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, the  specific  form  of  an  amendment  in  line  with  your  suggestion 
is  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pierce  here.     Would  it  not  be  well  if  he  could 
suggest  that  and  then  get  the  Secretary's  viewpoint  on  it  ? 
Secretary  PAYNE.  I  would  rather  that  would  come  up  later. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  \Vliich  is  the  bill  that  you  are  urging,  Mr.  Secretary? 
Secretary  PAYNE.  H.  R.  14469. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Secretary  Baker,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  you  now. 
Before  you  start,  if  there  is  no  objection,  I  will  designate  the  clerk 
of  the  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce  Committee  to  act  as  clerk 
of  the  Committee  on  Water  Power. 

STATEMENT   OF   HON.    NEWTON   D.    BAKER,    SECRETARY   OF 

WAR. 

Secretary  BAKER.  There  are  two  bills  here,  Mr.  Chairman — three, 
I  think — but  two  of  them  comprise  the  principal  subjects  of  discus- 
sion. The  first  one  has  been  adequately  covered,  I  think,  by  Secre- 
tary Payne.  I  have  nothing  I  can  add  to  that,  unless  the  committee 
wants  to  ask  some  questions  about  it.  That  is  in  regard  to  the 
national  parks. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions  with  regard  to  H.  R. 
14469? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  same  question  I  asked  Secretary 
Payne  in  regard  to  the  law,  that  is  now  in  the  act,  relative  to  the 
power  of  the  commission,  I  would  like  to  ask  you. 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  is  the  second  of  the  two  bills,  Judge.  The 
first  has  to  do  with  water  power. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  first  one,  14469,  which  contains  the  provision 
that  no  license  or  permission  shall  be  granted  unless  it  shall  not 
interfere  with  the  park  and  shall  be  deemed  adequate  protection 
and  utilization  of  the  reservation.  Your  view  is  that  notwithstand- 
ing that  provision  in  the  law,  better  results  would  be  obtained  if  the 
power  was  taken  from  the  commission  entirely  and  left  up  to  each 
individual  case  to  be  presented  to  Congress  to  determine  whether 
or  not  the  park  should  be  used  for  any  of  these  purposes  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  so,  Judge.  The  only  observation  I 
would  have  to  make  about  that  is  not  that  the  present  members 
of  the  water  power  commission  distrust  either  themselves  or  their 
successors,  I  have  not  that  feeling  about  it,  but  it  seems  to  me  that 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        19 

national  parks  do  stand  in  a  very  particular  case.  They  are  a 
permanent  public  reservation  of  incalculable  value  to  posterity,  and 
the  action  which  is  recommended  here  would  seem  to  me  to  serve 
notice  on  all  mankind  that  they  stood  in  a  different  case,  so  far  as 
their  development  and  exploitation  is  concerned,  from  any  other 
lands  which  the  Government  owns  or  any  other  rights  which  the 
Government  controls,  and  if  this  legislation  were  passed  in  this  form, 
persons  who  were  seeking  to  exploit  these  powers  would  realize  that 
they  had  to  make  a  case  that  satisfied  the  representatives  of  the 
people  of  the  whole  country,  and  that  it  was  a  national  interest  that 
was  especially  regarded  as  sacred  and  protected  by  this  extraordinary 
necessity. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  that  the  publicity  given  by  the  attempt 
to  get  a  bill  through  Congress  would  focus  the  public's  attention  on 
it  so  that  if  there  was  any  destruction  of  the  park  it  would  be  found 
out  before  the  bill  would  be  able  to  get  through  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Exactly  so,  sir,  and  it  seems  to  me — I  know 
very  little  about  the  national  parks;  I  never  have  had  the  privilege 
of  visiting  them — it  seems  to  me  that  local  interests  might  very  well 
see  their  local  needs  larger  than  the  national  interests  and  it  might  be 
pressed  upon  a  Commission  with  a  large  array  of  persons  brought 
from  a  particular  locality  to  show  the  necessity.  The  unrepresented 
persons  in  any  such  hearing  as  that  would  be  the  general  public. 
In  Congress  they  would  be  represented  by  their  Representatives. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  you  not  have  time  to  get  out  and  visit  them 
before  the  4th  of  March  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  My  time  is  growing  very  short,  unhappily  too 
short,  for  that  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  would  be  delighted  to  have  you  come  because  we 
know  your  heart  is  in  the  right  place. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  should  be  glad  to  come. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  give  us  your  views,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary, of  H.  R.  14469. 

Mr.  SIMS.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  question,  Mr.  Secretary. 
Under  the  law,  under  the  act  that  has  been  passed,  does  the  com- 
mission as  now  constituted  under  that  law  have  the  authority  to 
grant  water-power  sites  in  these  national  parks  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  so,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMS.  And  you  do  not  think  that  that  power  ought  to  be 
retained  by  the  commission  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  not,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Do  you  think  we  should  require  a  special  act  of  Congress 
in  each  instance  of  that  kind  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Well,  it  used  to  require  a  special  act  to  authorize  a  dam 
built  on  a  navigable  stream,  and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  the  argument 
is  with  you,  that  when  it  comes  to  despoiling  or  doing  that  which 
might  despoil  a  great  national  park  or  national  monument,  I  do  not 
think  your  little  commission  of  only  three  ought  to  have  such  vast 
powers.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  in  Congress.  It  does  take  the  consent 
of  Congress  now  to  build  a  highway  bridge  across  a  navigable  stream. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  am  very  sorry  that  the  argument  goes  so  far 
with  its  complications.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  think  the  release  of 


20        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

the  dam  building  privilege  from  the  necessity  of  congressional  inter 
yention  in  every  case  is  the  most  hopeful  thing  I  know — I  am  sure  the 
judge  does,  too — that  has  happened  for  a  long  time,  and  if  the  national 
parks  did  not  stand  in  a  separate  situation,  if  they  were  not  a  national 
asset  for  all  time  which,  when  once  destroyed,  can  never  be  replaced, 
I  should  very  much  doubt  the  argument  that  I  have  made  or  Judge 
Payne  has  made  in  behalf  of  this  bill;  but  I  think  they  do  stand  in 
a  different  relation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  one  question  I  would  like  to  ask.  The  Lassen 
Volcanic  National  Park  is  in  my  district,  very  close  to  Crater  Lake — 
I  am  familiar  with  the  others,  and  this  question  has  been  put  to  me 
in  the  last  four  or  five  months,  urgently  put :  Are  there  any  applica- 
tions now — in  addition  to  what  Secretary  Payne  said — whereby  an 
inchoate  right  might  be  in  any  of  these  applicants  that  they  could 
proceed  to  force  a  right,  and  should  any  legislation  be  enacted  on  this 
bill  to  prevent  that  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  There  are  no  rights  now  in  existence  of  any 
sort.  There  are  no  equities  in  existence  of  any  sort  unless  applica- 
tions, should  this  bill  be  passed,  applications  made  pursuant  to  it  to 
the  Congress.  Then  Congress  might  see  that  it  would  be  equitable 
to  recognize  a  certain  priority  in  those  who  had  previously  filed  appli- 
cations with  our  commission,  which  have  received  no  consideration 
there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  far  as  your  commission  is  concerned,  there  are  no 
applications  pending  now  whereby  the  parties  could  claim  an  in- 
choate right  or  priority  by  virtue  of  their  filing,  that  would  require 
any  legislation  to  wipe  out  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.     No,  sir;  there  are  none. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Secretary,  is  it  not  true  that  your  com- 
mission has  absolutely  refused  to  even  receive,  accept,  or  consider 
any  applications  filed  under  this  law,  which  has  been  on  the  statute 
books  three  months,  applicable  to  national  parks. 

Secretary  BAKER.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Under  what  authority  of  law  do  you,  an 
executive  officer,  refuse  to  accept  those  applications,  even  to  accept 
them  for  filing  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  We  have  them  up  at  the  office  but  we  have 
declined  to  consider  them. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  They  have  not  been  filed,  I  understand;  they 
have  not  been  put  on  the  docket. 

Secretary  BAKER.  They  have  not  been  particularly  filed  and  have 
not  been  advertised. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  the  law  is  not  being  enforced  in  that 
regard  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.     I  am  afraid  it  is  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  understand  you  were  anticipating  just  what  these 
letters  showed,  that  Congress  would  repeal  this  law  so  as  to  protect 
the  parks. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Judge  Payne  has  had  conference  with  Members 
of  the  House  and  Senate  available  at  the  time,  and  their  general  dis- 
position was  that  that  was  the  wise  course  of  action  and  we  have 
withheld  the  creation  of  any  rights,  equitable  and  legal,  pending 
Congressional  consideration. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       21 

Mr.  RAKER.  Technically,  you  held  the  law  up  a  little  ?  I  want  to 
commend  you,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Secretary  BAKER.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  .has  not  been  a  very  large 
crime  because  the  organization  of  the  commission  lias  taken  so  much 
time  that  nobody's  rights  have  yet  been  considered,  very  much. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  desire  to  express  your  view  with  reference 
to  14760  as  compared  with  14469,  the  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Rogers? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  do  not  know  the  difference  between  those 
bills,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  say  with  regard  to  one  question 
which  was  suggested  here,  that  I  think  the  bill  ought  not  to  have  an 
amendment  limiting  it  to  parks  in  their  present  limits.  I  think  it 
ought  to  apply  to  all  national  parks. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  you  aware  of  the  bills  that 
are  pending  in  Congress  adding  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  to  the 
national  parks  already  existent,  in  which  there  are  dozens  of  power 
sites  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes,  but  I  think  the  way  to  deal  with  this  is  to 
lay  down  the  general  policy  in  this  bill,  that  all  power  sites  erected 
within  the  limits  of  national  parks  must  be  done  by  special  Congres- 
sional approval  and  then  in  these  bills  which  are  pending,  to  add  if 
you  see  fit  in  any  one  of  those  to  exempt  it  from  these  provisions.  I 
think  it  ought  to  be  positive  exemption  rather  than  by  negative  and 
omission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.     Now,  do  you— 

Secretary  BAKER  (interposing).     The  second  bill— 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  15126? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes.  Judge  Raker  read  a  portion  of  that  on 
page  2  and  asked  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  his  judgment  as  to 
whether  that  change  of  policy  was  right  and  wise,  and  with  great  def- 
erence to  my  associate,  Judge  Payne,  I  think  his  answer  was  hardly 
full  enough. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  change  contemplated,  Mr.  Secretary  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  very  substantial  change, 
Mr.  Sinnott.  This  is  what  it  says : 

"In  the  performance  of  its  work  the  commission  shall  utilize  in  so 
far  as  practicable  the  field  offices  and  field  personnel  of  the  Depart- 
ments of  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture,  and  that"-— That  I  think  is 
what  we  are  now  obliged  to  do.  The  change  there  is  that — this  says: 
"in  so  far  as  practicable/'  and  the  present  law  says  we  must  do  it 
exclusively. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  law  requires  you  to  do  it  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  The  present  law  requires  us  and  limits  us  to  the 
offices  and  field  personnel  of  those  three  departments;  this  law  says 
that  the  commission  is  to  use  those  as  far  as  practicable,  but  author- 
izes us  to  supplement  them  by  agents  employed  directly  by  the  com- 
mission, and  my  judgment  is  that  it  is  not  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
commission  to  secure  an  entirely  independent  personnel  which  leads 
us  to  suggest  this  amendment,  but  it  is  the  inadequacy  of  the  facili- 
ties available  in  those  three  departments' which  makes  us  think  we 
must  have  the  right  to  supplement  them. 

Now  the  situation  is  this  on  the  larger  aspects.  There  have  been 
filed  under  this  bill,  since  the  commission  has  been  organized,  appli- 
cations for  something  over  $1,000,000,000  worth  of  developments. 


22        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO   THE   FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT. 

Mr.  Merrill  is  here  and  has  all  the  figures,  and  the  committee,  I  am 
sure,  will  want  to  inquire  of  him  about  it. 

That  is  five  times  as  much  prospective  development  as  was  consid- 
ered by  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  under  their  separate  powers  prior  to  the 
enactment  of  this  bill  dealing  with  water  powers  on  navigable  streams 
in  the  public  forests  and  on  the  public  lands  in  the  whole  history  of 
their  jurisdiction  over  that  subject.  In  other  words,  since  this  bill 
has  been  passed  applications  for  five  times  as  much  development  have 
been  filed  with  the  commission  as  the  three  separate  departments 
previously  considered  in  the  entire  history  of  their  jurisdiction  of 
water-power  development,  and  under  the  terms  of  the  water-power 
bill  the  things  which  it  is  now  necessary  to  ascertain  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  public  interests  and  for  the  regulation  of  this  great  use  ot 
power  are  so  very  much  more  detailed,  so  much  more  specific  and 
intricate,  that  Mr.  Merrill  roughly  estimates  that  with  regard  to  any 
application  it  is  now  necessary  for  us  to  know  five  times  as  much  as 
previously  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  or  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  would  have  been  required  to  know  before 
acting  ur.on  a  permit  filed  in  his  department. 

The  War  Department,  the  Interior  Department,  and  the  Agri- 
cultural Department  all  have  a  limited  expert  personnel.  They 
have  all  sought  to  be  generous  with  the  power  commission  in  the 
detailing  of  personnel  to  assist  them  in  this  work,  but  no  one  of  them 
nor  all  three  of  them  have  been  able  adequately  to  supply  the  com- 
mission with  export  porsonno],  and  the  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mission is  that  we  ought  to  be  permitted  in  cases  where,  for  instance, 
the  War  Department  has  no  district  engineer  within  accessible 
distance,  or  the  Interior  or  the  Agricultural  Department  has  no 
expert  investigator,  that  we  ought  not  to  hold  up  a  project  because 
of  the  inability  of  those  departments  to  detail  a  man,  but  that  we 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  select  a  suitable  expert  and  send  him  out  to 
make  the  survey  necessary.  It  is  a  supplement  rather  than  a  sub- 
stitute that  we  are  seeking  in  this  bill. 

We  went  before  the  Appropriations  Committee — a  branch  of  the 
Appropriations  Committee — and  asked  them  to  make  an  appropriation 
for  the  power  commission  of  a  larger  sum  than  was  ultimately  recom- 
mended by  the  committee,  and  suggested  that  they  put  in  a  with- 
drawal of  the  limitation  in  the  same  act  upon  expenditure  for  the 
employment  of  personnel.  They  said  that  would  be  legislation  and 
would  be  subject  to  a  point  of  order,  and  they  declined  to  do  it  but 
told  us  to  come  here  and  lay  the  case  before  you  and  that  if  your 
judgment  ran  with  theirs,  as  they  expressed  it,  and  with  ours  and 
you  changed  the  law  they  would  then  supplement  the  appropriation 
and  make  ad equatepro vision  for  that  employment. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  have  to  do  that  in  a  deficiency  appro- 
priation. 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  would  have  to  be  in  a  deficiency  appropria- 
tion, in  all  likelihood. 

There  is  one  other  aspect  of  it  that  I  would  like  to  speak  upon,  and 
then  I  will  have  covered  all  that  seems  to  occur  to  me  voluntarily. 
The  organization  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission  is  attempting  to 
do  in  anticipation — and  therefore  we  think  with  very  great  economy 
and  great  safety — -what  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  was 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       23 

obliged  to  do  in  retrospect  after  things  had  gotten  into  a  great  tangle 
If  at  the  time  the  railroads  were  developing  in  this  country  anybody 
could  have  foreseen  the  problems  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion would  have  subsequently  had  to  deal  with,  they  could  have  pro- 
vided systems  of  accounting,  bookkeeping,  statistical  records,  and  all 
that  sort  of  thing,  which  would  have  obviated  enormous  expenditure 
and  no  great  bewilderment  both  on  the  part  of  the  public  and  the 
official  minds  in  dealing  with  the  railroad  problem. 

We  are  now  just  at  the  outset  of  the  development  of  hydroelectric 
power.  The  commission  has  felt  that  it  ought,  as  far  as  human 
foresight  can  go,  to  surround  that  development r  ith  all  of  the  systems 
of  records  and  statistics  and  accumulations  of  information  that  will 
make  the  continuous  administration  of  that  as  a  public  function  easy 
and  inexpensive.  To  that  end,  of  course,  it  was  necessary  that  we 
should  have  a  thoroughly  scientific  system  of  accounting  from  the 
very  inauguration  of  these  enterprises. 

Under  the  bill  as  it  is  now  drawn  there  is  no  authority  in  the  com- 
mission to  employ  a  public  accountant  to  advise  it  how  to  set  up  its 
accounts.  We  are  authorized  to  have  an  engineer  officer  detailed 
from  the  War  Department  and  to  employ  an  executive  secretary,  but 
outside  of  that  I  think  we  are  entitled  to  spend  no  money  for  employ- 
ees of  any  sort.  We  do  not  have  anything  to  spend  on  the  details 
there,  so  it  has  been  necessary  for  the  War  Department  to — with 
deference  to  Mr.  Smith — I  do  not  say  break  the  law,  but,  well,  bend 
it — well,  we  did  this:  the  office  of  the  chief 'of  engineers,  by  my  direc- 
tion, employed  a  public  accountant  and  gave  him  a  titular  relation 
to  some  sort  of  accounting  problems  in  the  office  of  the  chief  of  en- 
gineers, and  then  detailed  him  to  the  Federal  Power  Commission  in 
order  that  he  might  act  there  as  an  expert  in  setting  up  a  system  of 
accounting  for  the  control  of  these  enterprises. 

It  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  have  the  advice  of  hydraulic  engineers, 
construction  engineers,  expert  accountants  and  many  different  kinds 
of  persons  in  dealing  with  this  new  and  vast  problem,  and  the  purpose 
of  this  amendment  is,  within  the  limits  of  the  appropriations  made  by 
Congress,  to  free  the  hands  of  the  commission  to  secure  such  assistance 
as  it  may  need  to  supplement  that  which  it  can  procure  from  the  three 
great  public  departments. 

That  covers  the  whole  subject  as  I  care  to  discuss  it,  with  the  ex- 
ception that  I  have  personally  and  with  the  concurrence  of  my  two 
associates,  recommended  that  there  be  included  in  the  second  of 
these  bills  a  provision  that  enlarges  the  maximum  salary  which  can  be 
paid  to  the  executive  secretary.  We  put  that  in  without  consulting 
Mr.  Merrill.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  any  opinion  about  it  one  way 
or  the  other,  but  we  put  it  in  because  of  Mr.  Merrill's  very  long  asso- 
ciation with  these  problems  and  the  practical  impossibility  of  retain- 
ing his  services  or  securing  an  adequate  substitute  for  the  limited 
amount  which  was  previously  put  in  for  an  executive  secretary. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  view  that  you  can  not  go  into  either  of  these 
departments  and  bring  out  any  of  these  experts  in  the  Department 
of  War,  Interior,  or  Agriculture  under  this  bill  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  You  mean  under  existing  law  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  At  the  present  time. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Under  existing  law  we  are  permitted  so  far  as 
they  can  be  spared,  but  you  see  it  is  made  the  duty,  for  instance,  of 


24        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

the  Secretary  of  War  to  detail  such  clerical  people  as  he  can  afford  to 
get  along  without,  and  these  are  contracting  days  and  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult— the  War  Department  has  reduced  its  clerical  personnel  from 
36,000  to  something  less  than  10,000  now,  and  every  department  in  the 
War  Department  is  crying  for  more  clerks  and  getting  less. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  has  been  so  much  said  lately  about  there  being 
a  surplus  in  all  these  departments,  and  I  am  pleased  to  have  you 
explain  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  you  have  not  so  many  that  you  can 
get  hold  of. 

Secretary  BAKER.  As  a  master  of  fact,  sir,  the  comment  on  the  War 
Department — I  have  not  observed  it  as  to  others — the  comment  on 
the  War  Department  in  that  regard  has  abated  somewhat  within  the 
last  two  or  three  months .  I  think  those  who  have  examined  the  matter 
have  found  that  the  War  Department  has  reduced  its  clerical  per- 
sonnel to  almost  a  minus  minimum. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  con- 
struction of  a  water  power  project  can  not  be  undertaken  until  the 
Power  Commission  makes  a  preliminary  survey  and  makes  even  a 
survey  of  the  water  power  possibilities  of  a  region,  all  work  must  be 
delayed  until  you  can  get  a  sufficient  personnel  to  make  those  pre- 
liminary investigations.  Is  that  right  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  this  legislation  is  necessary  if  the  act  is  to 
function  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Surely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  matter  which 
might  give  rise  to  trouble,  the  last  part  of  page  3,  line  19,  which  says: 
"there  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  such  sums  as  Con- 
gress may  hereafter  determine."  That  is  all  right.  That  is  the 
authorization.  This  committee  has  jurisdiction  as  to  authorizations, 
but  to  go  on  and  say:  "and  the  sum  of  $100,000  is  hereby  appropri- 
ated out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated," 
and  so  forth — don't  you  think  that  ought  to  come  out? 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  ought  to  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  so.  Of  course,  you  know  the  sundry 
civil  bill  carries  $100,000. 

Secretary  BAKER.  The  reason  that  is  in  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
that  Mr.  Merrill  in  drawing  it  simply  drew  the  original  section  and 
stuck  this  in  as  an  amendment.  That  was  part  of  the  original 
section  and  it  is  not  intended  to  appropriate  an  additional  $100,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  see  that  under  the  new  rule  of  procedure 
in  the  House  that  would  be  subject  to  criticism  and  objection. 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  ought  to  go  out. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  is  necessary  to  have  an  authorization  of  law. 
The  language  could  be  made  in  the  way  of  an  authorization,  but  that 
appropriation  of  $100,000  should  be  eliminated.  If  it  failed  in  the 
appropriation  act,  you  would  have  an  authorization  for  it  at  a  later 
time,  so  it  might  be  well  to  carry  the  authorization. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Merrill  probably  can  inform  us  on  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  lot  of  very  valuable  material 
gathered  in  the  War  Department,  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
and  the  Agricultural  Department  in  regard  to  water  power,  in  the 
way  of  books,  manuscripts,  plats  and  so  forth.  Under  the  law  can 
you  have  that  transferred  to  your  department  without  any  addi- 
tional authorization  ? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       25 

Secretary  BAKER.  Its  transfer  would  be  undesirable.  It  is  insepar- 
able, largely,  from  the  other  interests  in  those  several  departments 
which  led  to  its  collection.  In  the  War  Department,  for  instance, 
the  question  of  navigation  have  led  to  the  investigation  of  all  these 
rivers,  but  our  practice — and  it  will  be  the  continuing  practice 
undoubtedly  under  any  form  of  law — is  to  have  the  applications 
inspected  in  the  several  departments  with  a  view  to  any  information 
they  have  there.  For  instance,  any  application  for  the  flow  of  a 
river  would  instantly  send  our  Secretary  over  to  the  War  Depart- 
ment, to  the  chief  engineer's  office,  to  find  out  all  they  knew  about 
that  river.  That  information  is  all  available  and  can  not  be  dupli- 
cated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  same  with  regard  to  equipment,  supplies  and 
law  books  and  reference  books,  books  of  reference,  periodicals,  and  so 
forth,  your  view  is  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  accumulate  those 
that  would  be  applicable  to  this  branch,  namely,  water  power  in  all 
its  phases,  rather  than  to  try  and  get  those  that  the  other  departments 
have? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  the  current  literature  on  water  power 
development  ought  to  be  available  in  the  office  of  the  executive 
secretary,  and  a  very  limited  law  library  would  be  necessary  for  legal 
advice. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  really  would  be  no  duplication,  then  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  not;  no. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  happen  to  have  the  honor  of  being  the 
first  chairman  of  the  special  Committee  on  Water  Power,  and  I 
suppose  had  something  to  do  with  and  gave  considerable  attention 
to  the  details  of  it.  This  question  of  the  executive  secretary  and 
salary  of  course  was  discussed  and  considered  from  every  viewpoint. 
There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  the  executive  secretary  should 
be  a  very  competent  man,  and  on  the  other  hand  there  was  the 
suggestion  that  if  he  were  too  competent  it  might  bring  about  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  three  secretaries,  having  so  much  work 
to  do  outside  of  the  commission,  to  rel}r  too  much  upon  the  one 
very  competent  man.  But  I  can  see  the  trouble  and  it  has  come 
up,  no  doubt,  under  your  own  observation,  that  we  can  not  expect 
an  exceedingly  competent  man  to  work  for  the  Government  always 
at  starvation  wages,  when  the  very  people  who  are  directly  to  become 
the  beneficiaries  of  the  service  are  willing  to  employ  him,  if  he  will 
resign  and  take  the  employment,  at  a  very  large  compensation 
compared  to  that  which  he  is  receiving. 

In  discussing  this  matter  there  was  no  disposition  at  all  to  mini- 
mize the  services  of  the  man  who  we  then  guessed  would  be — or  that 
we  supposed  would  be — the  executive  secretary,  which  has  turned 
out  to  be  a  correct  guess,  but  those  questions  arose,  and  it  is  a  very 
large  question,  because  men  are  quitting  the  public  service  all  the 
time  because  they  could  get  more  money  to  serve  a  corporation  or 
individuals  in  private  business  who  have  the  responsibilities  of  family 
and  all  that  sort  of  thing  on  them.  Now  I  think  that  the  secretary's 
salary  in  this  case,  in  view  of  the  great  responsibility  that  he  has  to 
have,  that  he  must  have,  that  he  ought  to  have,  ought  to  be  such 
that  he  could  afford  to  hold  that  office  just  as  long  as  he  served  the 
public;  but  I  do  not  know  how  soon  some  private  corporation  who 


26        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

needs  that  expert  service  will  come  in  and  outbid  the  Government. 
I  do  not  know  what  we  are  going  to  do  in  that  kind  of  a  situation. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  do  not  know  the  compromise,  Judge,  between 
the  retention  and  the  loss  of  valued  public  officials.  I  do  not  know 
how  the  Government  is  ever  going  to  be  able  to  keep  men.  That  is 
what  is  happening  all  the  time;  they  become  competent  and  are 
drafted  into  outside  employment  where  the  compensation  is  greater, 
and  obviously  there  must  be  a  limit  beyond  which  the  Government 
can  not  go  in  that  competition. 

Mr.  SIMS.  But  men  are  leaving  the  public  service  all  the  time. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Of  course. 

Mr.  SIMS.  To  go  out  and  do  for  a  private  employer  that  which 
they  were  doing  lor  the  whole  people. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Exactly. 

Mr.  SIMS.  But  the  whole  people  did  not  value  the  services  suffi- 
ciently to  give  a  living  wage,  and  in  an  instance  of  this  sort,  without 
any  regard  whatever  to  the  personality  of  the  present  executive  sec- 
retary, the  man  who  is  acquiring  the  knowledge  which  the  executive 
secretary  of  the  power  commission  ought  to  have  as  to  the  location 
and  value  of  sites  for  hydraulic  power  development,  will  have  in  his 
head  an  asset  that  is  bankable  at  a  very  large  figure  if  some  private 
company  wants  to  get  him. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  In  the  water-power  act  is  this  secretary  called 
the  "  executive  secretary  "  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  I  remember  that  matter  was  spoken  of  when 
the  bill  was  under  consideration,  and  there  was  some  objection  to 
the  use  of  the  word  "executive."  I  did  not  recall  whether  it  was 
retained  in  the  act  or  not. 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  was  retained.  He  is  officially  "  executive 
secretary." 

Mr.  SIMS.  Not  speaking  outside — I  mean  not  giving  out  secrets  of 
the  committee — I  objected  to  it  myself,  but  not  particularly  on  ac- 
count of  this  special  employment.  It  looked  to  me  that  we  might 
begin  the  practice  of  having  executive  secretaries  in  every  depart- 
ment at  a  salary  much  above  the  ordinary  secretary  and  that  it 
might  possibly  lead  to  the  creation  of  such  secretaryships  in  all  of  the 
departments,  and  I  did  not  think  the  word  " executive"  would  add 
anything  to  his  qualifications  to  serve  or  be  an  inducement  for  him 
to  be  a  better  officer,  and  it  looked  to  me  that  it  was  an  unnecessary 
designation. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  should  think,  Judge,  that  the  reason  for  it 
would  be  in  this  case  that  you  have  three  members  of  the  commission : 
they  commonly  execute  their  functions  through  a  common  secre- 
tary who  is  the  executive  secretary  of  the  commission.  Where  you 
have  a  single  head  of  a  department,  to  have  an  executive  secretary 
there  would  be  a  surplusage,  because  the  head  of  the  department  is 
himself  the  executive  secretary. 

Mr.  SIMS.  The  committee  took  that  view  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  I  was  responsible  for  the  amendment  which 
designated  the  secretary  as  the  "  executive  secretary,"  for  the  reason 
that  Secretary  Baker  has  just  referred  to,  and  with  the  hope  that  that 
title  might  beget  a  larger  salary.  You  think  that  the  title  might 
well  be  amended,  Mr.  Secretary,  by  adding  "and  for  other  purposes"  ? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       27 

That  has  been  suggested.  It  is  a  common  form  of  law  and  I  think 
probably  ought  to  be  put  in  this  bill. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes,  I  think  it  helps  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
act  sometimes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  questions?  If  not,  we  are 
very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  your  views. 

Secretary  Meredith,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  you  on  either  one  or 
all  three  of  the  bills. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  EDWIN  T.  MEREDITH,   SECRETARY  OF 

AGRICULTURE. 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  have  anything 
in  particular  to  add.  I  wish,  however,  to  indorse  most  heartily 
what  Secretary  Baker  has  said  regarding  personnel  and  the  ability 
of  the  commission  to  conduct  its  work  more  efficiently  and  effectively 
with  a  force  of  its  own  instead  of  having  to  depend  upon  employees 
detailed  from  the  three  departments.  The  secretary  of  the  commis- 
sion recently  asked  us  to  assign  an  employee  who,  in  his  opinion,  was 
especially  qualified  for  the  work  of  the  commission.  After  going 
into  the  matter  thoroughly,  however,  we  found  that  we  could  not 
spare  him  from  the  task  upon  which  he  was  engaged  without  serious 
detriment  to  the  service.  We  tried  in  every  way  to  meet  the  wishes 
of  the  commission,  and  finally  a  satisfactory  arrangement  was  made 
after  the  lapse  of  several  weeks.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  a 
situation  of  this  sort  tends  to  give  the  commission  the  best  personnel 
or  to  enable  it  to  measure  up  to  the  responsibilities  imposed  upon  it 
in  such  an  important  matter  as  the  handling  and  development  of 
our  water-power  resources.  So  I  merely  wish  to  emphasize  all  that 
Secretary  Baker  has  said  regarding  personnel. 

On  the  question  of  the  national  parks,  I  feel,  as  the  other  secreta- 
ries have  expressed  themselves,  that  the  parks  belong  to  the  public 
as  a  whole,  and  that  the  public  should  have  notice  whenever  there  is 
a  proposal  to  utilize  the  parks,  or  any  portion  of  them,  for  purposes 
other  than  those  for  which  they  were  originally  created.  It  does 
not  seem  to  me  that  such  a  provision  would  necessarily,  in  all  cases, 

Erevent  the  utilization  of  some  features  where  no  harm  would  come 
"om  it.  If  a  bill  providing  for  a  certain  concession  were  introduced, 
the  committee  to  which  it  is  referred  could  ask  for  a  report,  and 
probably  would  ask  for  a  report,  from  the  water-power  commission. 
The  commission  would  make  a  report  for  or  against  the  proposal  and 
this  report,  together  with  the  record  of  the  hearings  on  the  measure, 
would  enable  the  proper  congressional  committee  to  make  a  report  to 
Congress  that,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  more  or  less  conclusive  and 
certainly  would  have  very  great  weight  with  the  whole  membership. 
If  it  were  concluded  that  the  project  would  result  in  no  particular  harm 
to  the  park,  that  it  provided  for  developments  which  would  probably 
never  be  seen  by  visitors,  that  it  would  not  spoil  the  waterfalls,  etc., 
Congress  then  would  be  in  position  to  pass  upon  the  matter  and 
the  larger  interest  of  the  public  in  the  parks  would  be  fully  conserved. 
Personally,  I  do  not  feel  that  no  use  whatever  can  be  made  of  a 

Fark  without  ruining  it  for  park  purposes,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  feel  that  we  should  take  no  chance's  and  that  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt  should  be  on  the  side  of  preservation  rather  than  on  the  side 


28        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

of  utilization.  So  I  concur  in  what  the  other  secretaries  have  said 
regarding  that  feature  of  the  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  your  views  as  to  the  boundaries,  the 
operation  of  the  bill  as  to  the  boundaries,  the  limits  now  existing  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  It  seems  to  me  that  such  matters  could  be 
discussed  when  any  proposal  to  enlarge  the  parks  is  under  considera- 
tion. That  would  be  the  time  to  present  objections  to  any  particular 
boundary  because  of  the  fact  that  it  comprises  certain  possibilities 
for  water  power,  irrigation  development,  etc.  The  questions  involved 
could  be  thrashed  out  at  the  time  and  Congress  could  take  such  action 
as  the  facts  in  each  case  may  warrant.  In  other  words,  it  seems  to 
me  that  whole  matter  could  be  dealt  with  in  a  thorough-going 
manner  when  the  boundaries  are  being  discussed  and  before  a  deter- 
mination is  reached  as  to  whether  this  or  that  area  should  be  in- 
cluded. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  in  the  Departments  of  Agriculture, 
Interior,  and  War  experts  along  the  line  of  accounting,  experts  along 
the  line  of  hydraulic  engineering  or  hydroelectric  power  development 
that  you  could  put  into  the  personnel  under  the  power  commission  ? 
Or  should  they  have  the  means  to  develop  a  personnel  distinctly 
under  the  Federal  power  commission  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  That  is,  by  taking  them  from  the  three 
departments  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  do  it  or  have  you  got  to  create  a  personnel 
practically  of  outside  talent  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  think  there  might  be  some  available. 
Mr.  Merrill  has,  no  doubt,  made  a  canvass  of  the  different  depart- 
ments with  a  view  to  seeing  who  might  be  available  for  detail  to  the 
commission,  and  I  imagine  there  are  some  men  who  could  drop  their 
work  in  a  particular  department. 

One  of  our  troubles  is  the  lack  of  funds.  If  we  employ  men  for 
particular  purposes  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  then  find 
that  we  must  detail  them  to  the  water-power  commission,  the  work 
upon  which  they  have  been  engaged  is  curtailed  and  handicapped. 
In  other  words,  we  are  merely  curtailing  the  work  of  the  three  de- 
partments by  these  details,  while,  if  the  employees  concerned  were 
transferred  outright  to  the  commission,  we  could  then  secure  others 
to  take  their  places  and  both  the  commission  and  the  department 
would  get  along  without  handicap. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  can  not  quite  understand  what  you 
mean  about  this  personnel.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  water-power 
commission  has  the  right  to  draft  anyone  hi  your  office 

Secretary  MEREDITH  (interposing).     I  do  not  so  understand. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  that  is  just  what  I  wanted  to  know.  Where  do 
you  get  that  idea  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  The  commission  can  ask  us  for  a  man  and 
if  we  can  spare  him  we  may  do  so;  but  if  we  say,  "No,  that  man  must 
stay  with  us,"  the  commission  can  not  order  his  detail. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  it  is  your  view  that  the  water-power  commission 
does  not  have  the  right  to  select  anyone  they  want  from  either  of  these 
three  departments  and  put  him  to  work  in  the  water-power  com- 
mission ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH .  Oh,  no,  unless  we  authorize  his  detail  to  the- 
water-power  commission. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       29 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  did  you  get  that  idea?  I  don't  find  it  in  the 
law,  and  when  we  put  this  in,  we  put  it  in  with  that  very  purpose  in 
view.  I  am  asking  you  now  because  there  has  been  a  good  deal  said 
about  an  overplus  of  personnel.  Now  if  you  have  that  personnel  in 
these  departments,  it  is  none  of  their  business  where  they  are  trans- 
ferred to.  If  they  are  competent  and  qualified  men,  this  power  com- 
mission has  the  absolute  power,  as  I  thought  the  law  provided,  for 
them  to  select  any  man  in  any  of  the  three  departments  and  put  him 
to  work  under  the  water-power  commission. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  do  not  agree  with  that.  That  is  not  the 
way  we  understand  it.  It  certainly  would  be  an  ill-advised  require- 
ment, would  it  not,  to  let  Mr.  Merrill,  for  instance,  as  executive 
secretary  of  the  water-power  commission,  take  any  employee  he 
desires  from  any  of  the  three  departments,  or  to  let  two  members  of 
the  commission,  for  instance,  outvote  the  third  member  and  say  to 
him,  ''We  want  to  take  your  entire  legal  department  and  walk  off 
with  it?" 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Merrill  could  not  vote  on  that. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  But  the  other  two  members  could.  Suppose 
that  Secretary  Payne  and  I  decided  that  we  wanted  to  detail  all  the 
employees  of  a  particular  branch  of  the  War  Department  to  the 
water-power  commission  because  we  needed  them.  Secretary  Baker's 
hands  would  be  tied  under  your  interpretation  of  the  provision,  and 
I  do  not  believe  Congress  intended  to  create  or  make  possible  a  situa- 
tion of  this  sort.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  me  that  its  purpose 
was  to  authorize  details  to  the  commission  with  the  approval  of  the 
head  of  the  department  concerned. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Hasn't  there  been  a  sufficient  number  of  personnel 
in  your  office  that  you  could  pick  out  any  of  these  men  ? 

Mr.  MEREDITH.  Absolutely  not.  We  haven't  a  sufficient  force  in 
my  office  to  do  all  the  typewriting  and  clerical  work  that  is  required. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  does  all  this  talk  come  from  then,  that  the  de- 
partments are  honeycombed  with  extra  men  and  women  that  are 
doing  no  work  and  that  you  can  get  all  you  want  for  any  other 
purpose  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  You  can  judge  for  yourself  where  the  talk 
comes  from,  but  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  real  basis  for  it  so  far  as 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  is  concerned. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  there  is  nothing  in  it  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  There  is  nothing  in  it  so  far  as  I  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question— I  don't  say  I  agree 
entirely  with  you;  I  don't  know — when  this  matter  was  discussed 
before  the  committee  in  the  hearing  fully  and  we  spent  possibly  six 
weeks  on  it,  the  committee  itself,  I  believe,  thought  that  this  pro- 
vision in  the  bill  gave  this  commission  the  power  to  go  to  either  of 
these  departments  and  select  a  competent  and  qualified  man  that  had 
made  good  in  that  department  and  put  him  to  work  in  this  water- 
power  commission's  work,  and  we  thought  we  covered  it,  but  even 
if  we  have  under  the  law,  your  theory  is  that  the  men  are  not  there  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  They  are  not,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  under  this  bill,  12^51,  these  people  would  be 
classified  under  this  power  without  civil  service.  Isn't  it  your  view 
that  the  bill  should  be  amended  that  all  of  these  appointees  should 
be  under  civil  service? 


30        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  would  imagine  so,  yes;  the  same  as  the 
other  departments. 

Mr.  KAKER.  In  other  words,  it  would  harmonize  them,  with  the 
rest/and  the  bill  ought  to  be  amended  so  as  to  require  these  appointees 
to  come  under  the  civil  service. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  Mr.  Secretary,  even  where  you  have  men  that  you 
may  transfer  to  the  water-power  commission,  that  transfer  may  be 
more  or  less  temporary  and  in  that  way  there  is  a  lack  of  continuity 
of  personnel  in  the  Federal  Water  Power  Commission,  is  there  not? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  We  have  not  been  in  operation  long  enough 
to  know.  I  imagine  that  would  be  the  result.  In  any  event,  there 
is  a  lack  of  permanency;  there  is  a  lack  of  definiteness  and  responsi- 
bility. An  employee  on  detail  may  say,  "I  am  employed  in  the 
Department  of  War  or  Agriculture  or  Interior,  and  I  am  only  detailed 
over  here."  He  doesn't  know  whether  he  is  there  permanently  or 
how  long  he  will  remain.  I  do  not  think  any  other  institution  would 
have  an  arrangement  whereby  it  is  necessary  to  borrow  employees 
here  and  there  in  order  to  execute  an  immensely  important  task. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  commission  shou.d  have  its  own  organization 
that  will  be  responsible  to  it  and  to  it  alone.  That,  in  my  opinion, 
is  the  only  business  way  to  do. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  With  reference  to  the  amendment  suggested  by 
Mr.  Raker  about  the  civil  service,  do  you  think  the  most  competent 
hydraulic  engineers  can  be  obtained  by  a  competitive  civil-service 
examination  > 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  do  not  say  that  the  most  competent  can  be 
obtained.  I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  a  competent  engineer 
would  object  particularly  to  taking  the  civil-service  examination 
and  it  would  be  no  difficulty  for  him.  I  think  there  is  an  advantage 
in  the  civil-service,  but  1  do  not  profess  to  be  an  authority  on  such  a 
mutter.  Mr.  Merrill  has  had  more  experience  along  that  line  and  is 
better  qualified  to  speak  on  the  subject. 

The  CHAIRM.  \x.  There  probably  is  no  surplus  of  experts  in  any  of 
the  departments. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  There  is  not  in  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture. 

The  CHAERM.AN.  Nor  in  the  others,  perhaps.  So  this  surplus  is 
probably  more  confined  to  the  clerical  branch  than  to  the  expert 
branch. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  beg  your  pardon;  I  did  not  understand  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  say  this  surplus  that  has  been  mentioned  prob,- 
ably  has  more  reference  to  the  clerical  department  than  to  the  de- 
partment of  experts,  and  you  want  experts  to  develop  this  personnel 
of  the  power  commission. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Well,  even  in  the  matter  of  clerks  we  have 
had  occasion  to  write,  say,  250  letters,  similar  letters  to  a  list  of 
names,  and  we  have  been  compelled  to  scatter  the  work  among 
several  different  bureaus  in  order  to  get  it  done  within  a  reasonable 
time.  I  have  had  a  number  of  experiences  of  this  sort — experiences 
which  I  would  not  permit  in  my  own  office;  I  would  have  enough 
people  there  to  do  the  work  without  waste.  g$J| 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  This  contemplates  a  permanent  personnel  of 
experts,  I  presume  ? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       31 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  And  that  is  what  the  commission  wishes  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Yes;  the  commission  ought  to  have  a  regular 
force  which  would  be  responsible  only  to  it  and  upon  which  it  could 
depend  for  the  discharge  of  its  duties.  It  will  also  need  outside 
advice  from  time  to  time.  It  may  require  the  services  of  a  particular 
man  for  this  purpose  or  that  purpose,  who  will  not  need  to  be  engaged 
regularly,  but  there  certainly  should  be  a  skeleton  organization  with 
enough  men  to  make  the  examinations  and  perform  the  functions 
required  by  the  law.  But  I  really  feel  that  Mr.  Merrill,  who  has  had 
long  experience  in  the  Forest  Service  in  connection  with  water-power 
matters,  can  give  you  more  concrete  information  regarding  the 
number  of  experts  and  other  employees  the  commission  needs. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  I  am  not  entirely  familiar  with  the  language 
ordinarily  used  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  but  I  had  in  mind  just  what 
you,  Mr.  Secretary,  have  said,  that  you  contemplate  the  employment 
of  a  permanent  force,  and  I  was  wondering  if  the  language  "  is  hereby 
authorized  to  be  appropriated  such  sums  as  Congress  may  hereafter  • 
determine"  did  not  imply  a  more  or  less  temporary  force  to  do  on  a 
large  scale  what  you  say  may  be  done,  the  employment  of  an  expert 
for  the  time  being,  and  then  the  employment  of  somebody  else. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  I  do  not  have  the  details  in  my  mind,  but  I 
see  no  necessity  for  using  the  word  "  permanent."  Why  not  employ 
a  force  that  is  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  its  business ;  then  it  may 
be  temporary  or  it  may  be  permanent,  depending  upon  the  work  to 
be  done. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  any  objection,  Mr.  Secretary,  to 
putting  in  line  14  the  words  " under  the  civil-service  law?"  So  that 
it  would  read — this  is  on  page  2 — "  authorized  to  employ  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  and  elsewhere  such  experts,  technical,  clerical,  and 
other  personnel,"  then  say,  "to  be  selected  under  the  civil-service 
act,  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  performing  the  duties 
imposed  by  this  act,"  and  so  forth. 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Personally,  I  would  have  no  objection  to  it. 
I  have  not  heard  the  question  discussed,  however,  and  there  may  be 
some  reason  why  it  might  be  objectionable,  although  none  occurs  to 
me  at  this  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  have  no  objection  if  it  were  applicable 
to  clerical  and  other  personnel  ? 

Secretary  MEREDITH.  Not  at  all.     It  ought  to  be. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  questions  ?  If  not,  we  are 
much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  the  expression  of  your  views. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  obliged  to  leave  Washington 
on  an  early  afternoon  train,  and  I  would  greatly  appreciate  being 
heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  hear  you  now,  then.  C  ive  your  name 
and  address  and  whom  you  represent. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  J.  PIERCE,  SEATTLE,  WASH., 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  WASHINGTON  IRRIGATION  &  DEVEL- 
OPMENT CO. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  My  name  is  Henry  J.  Pierce,  of  Seattle,  Wash.,  presi- 
dent of  the  Washington  Irrigation  &  Development  Co.  I  wish  to 


32        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

address  myself  first  to  House  bill  14469.  I  desire  to  suggest  an 
amendment  to  this  bill  which  is  now  under  consideration. 

The  bill  as  now  before  you  would  forbid  the  utilization  of  the  water 
resources  contained  not  only  within  the  present  boundaries  of  the 
national  parks  and  national  monuments  but  also  within  any  enlarge- 
ment of  their  boundaries.  While  there  are  some  water  resources 
contained  within  the  present  boundaries  of  the  parks  which  could 
be  used  to  advantage  to  supply  the  people  of  near-by  localities  with 
power  and  with  water  for  irrigation  and  domestic  use,  yet  the  greater 
part  of  the  water  resources  of  the  mountainous  sections  of  the  Pacific 
coast  are  contained  in  areas  outside  the  park  boundaries. 

The  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast  States,  and  especially  of  California, 
view  with  apprehensio.n,  however,  allowing  the  terms  of  this  bill  to 
apply  to  the  great  areas  which  are  comprised  in  the  proposed  addi- 
tions to  the  national  parks.  The  proposed  enlargement  of  the 
Sequoia  National  Park,  for  instance,  would  take  in  the  headwaters 
of  the  Kings,  Kern,  Kaweah,  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers,  comprising 
water  resources  which  will  be  absolutely  necessary  to  the  future 
growth  of  central  and  southern  California.  This  water  will  be  needed 
in  the  future  by  the  people  living  on  the  plains  below  for  irrigation, 
agricultural  and  domestic  purposes,  and  for  the  production  of  hydro- 
electric power  to  furnish  light,  power,  and  heat,  and  there  may  be 
still  further  and  larger  additions  to  be  made  to  the  national  parks. in 
the  future  which,  with  the  use  of  the  water  resources  which  they 
contain  forbidden,  would  seriously  handicap  if  not  prevent  future 
growth. 

We  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast  States,  Mr.  Chairman,  love  and 
reverence  the  natural  wonders  contained  within  our  national  parks 
and  monuments,  perhaps  even  more  than  those  who  dwell  in  other 
parts  of  the  conutry.  We  are  pround  that  these  great  natural  mu- 
seums are  located  in  our  part  of  the  country.  We  would  take  up 
arms,  if  necessary,  to  prevent  their  desecration.  We  are  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  splendid  and  unselfish  work  which  is  being  performed 
by  Mr.  Mather,  director  of  parks,  and  by  his  bureau  in  protecting 
these  treasures  from  destruction.  But  we  ask  not  to  be  denied  the 
right  to  use  the  water  which  may  become  necessary  to  the  further 
growth  of  population  on  the  Pacific  slope.  I  believe  that  the 
water  resources  contained  within  the  proposed  enlargement  of  the 
park  boundaries  may  be  utilized  for  the  needs  of  mankind  without 
damaging  the  beauty  of  the  surroundings. 

I  respectfully  suggest,  therefore,  that  the  bill  be  amended  so  as  to 
restrict  its  operation  to  the  present  boundaries  of  the  parks.  This 
can  be  done  by  inserting  after  the  word  "limits,"  in  line  7  of  page  1, 
the  words  "as  now  constituted,"  and  by  inserting  in  line  4  of  page 
2,  after  the  word  "of,"  the  word  "existing."  If  this  is  done,  I  shall 
be  greatly  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  does  the  second  amendment  come  in? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  The  second  amendment  is  in  line  4  of  page  2,  after 
the  word  "of,"  insert  the  word  "existing." 

I  take  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  from  what  Secretary  Payne  has  said 
he  would  not  object  to  this  amendment,  and  if  I  may  I  would  like  to 
ask  Mr.  Mather  if  he  understands  it  that  way. 

Mr.  STEPHEN  T.  MATHER.  That  is  my  understanding  of  the  Sec- 
retary's attitude.  We  went  over  this  suggested  amendment  in  our 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       33 

own  office  with  two  of  our  officials  of  the  National  Park  Service,  and 
then  took  the  matter  up  with  Secretary  Payne,  and  I  think  he  has 
already  indicated  to-day  that  an  amendment  of  this  kind  would  not 
be  objectionable  to  him. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  So  it  is  agreeable  to  confine  the  limitation  to  the 
present  parks  ? 

Mr.  MATHER.  Yes,  sir;  letting  the  other  matters  come  up  in  con- 
nection with  these  specific  bills  for  the  creation  of  other  parks  or 
forest  additions  to  the  present  parks. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  I  don't  understand  that.  You  mean  to  leave 
the  matter  to  Congress  in  additions  to  the  parks,  or  leave  the  matter 
to  the  commission  ? 

Mr.  MATHER.  Leave  it  to  Congress,  which  could  in  its  discretion 
leave  the  matter  of  power  in  any  future  parks  either  to  Congress 
itself  or  to  the  power  commission.  That  would  be  a  matter  to  be 
taken  up  as  each  specific  bill  came  up. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  if  they  added  a  million  acres  to  the 
Mount  Lassen  Volcanic  National  Park,  if  the  amendment  suggested 
by  Mr.  Pierce  was  adopted,  Congress  would  determine  in  that  addi- 
tional legislation  as  to  what  its  policy  would  be  as  to  the  development 
of  hydroelectric  energy  in  that  park  ? 
Mr.  PIERCE.  Exactly  so. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  in  case  Congress  did  not  act  on  that  matter, 
the  matter  would  be  left  in  the  power  of  the  commission,  under  Mr. 
Pierce's  amendment. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  Now,  I  don't  know  whether  it  would  or  not. 
Mr.  MATHER.  I  did  not  get  Mr.  Sinnott's  question. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  In  case  Congress  did  not  prescribe  terms  for  some 
addition  to  the  park,  then  the  matter  would  be  left  to  the  commission, 
under  Mr.  Pierce's  amendment  to  14469. 

Mr.  MATHER.  If  Congress  was  silent,  I  think  your  construction  is 
correct. 

Mr.  SIMS.  If  the  amendment  goes  in,  then  that  exempts  national 
parks  as  the  boundaries  are  now  declared  and  fixed  ? 
Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes;  Mr.  Sims. 

Mr.  SIMS.  That  is,  if  there  is  any  water-power  development  in  a 
national  park  as  the  boundaries  now  exist,  it  would  take  an  act  of 
Congress  to  permit  it,  in  addition  to  the  powers  of  this  bill  ? 
Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMS.  But  on  all  other  public  lands,  applications  can  be  made 
immediately  under  the  act  and  the  work  started? 
Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Now,  then,  if  Congress  afterwards  shall  determine  to 
extend  the  boundaries  of  a  national  park  or  create  a  new  one,  that 
would  contain  these  applications  where  this  work  was  done,  then 
Congress  would  not  have  the  power  to  stop  that  or  prevent  it,  but 
would  have  to  let  it  go  on,  because  it  has  become  a  vested  right. 
Mr.  PIERCE.  I  should  say  so. 

Mr.  SIMS.  That  is  something,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  ought  to 
think  a  little  about  before  we  decide  it.  It  has  been  admitted  here 
that  there  are  lands  that  ought  to  be  in  national  parks  that  are  not  in, 
and  if  you  or  anybody  else  should  go  there  and  make  application  and 

29414—21 3 


34        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

have  license  granted,  then  you  would  have  a  vested  right  and  Con- 
gress could  not  make  a  park  of  it  without  compensating  you. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  will  be  provided  for,  that  very  contingency,  in 
this  bill,  in  section  28.  Until  the  man  has  actually  acquired  a 
right,  not  an  inchoate  right,  Congress  can  alter,  repeal,  or  dispose  of 
it  as  it  sees  fit. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Are  you  quoting  from  the  law,  from  the  water- 
power  act  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  From  the  water-power  act,  yes.  It  has  the  right  to 
alter,  amend,  or  repeal  this  act.  In  other  words,  until  the  man  has 
got  an  absolute  title  Congress  has  got  the  right  to  dispose  of  it. 

Mr.  SIMS.  When  a  permit  issued  to  him  he  has  a  privilege  under 
the  permit,  and  then  if  his  license  is  approved  he  has  a  vested  right. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Of  course,  that  would  mean  that  every  area  outside 
of  the  boundaries  of  existing  parks  under  that  construction  might  be 
considered  as  possible  park  area,  and  if  that  rule  were  invoked  there 
would  be  no  area  whatever  that  could  be  used  for  water-power  sites 
•under  the  present  bill,  and  of  course  that  would  defeat  the  very 
purposes  of  the  bill,  if  you  regarded  as  possible  park  area  any  area 
outside  of  an  existing  park.  The  amendment,  of  course,  means  that 
later  on,  if  Congress  finds  an  area  that  is  untouched  by  vested  rights 
granted  under  the  water-power  bill,  and  that  area  is  favorable  for 
parks,  then  Congress  can  create  it  into  a  park  and  at  that  time  it  has 
the  right  to  say  whether  or  not  the  water-power  commission  will  have 
any  jurisdiction  over  it  at  all.  It  seems  to  me  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Pierce  is  not  needed,  because  it  is  not  assumed  that  will  ever  arise. 
Of  course  it  can  arise  by  power  of  Congress  setting  aside  lands  in  the 
future,  so  why  say  anything  about  it  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  further  condition  would  exist,  would  it  not, 
Mr.  Pierce,  that  if  additional  territory  was  added  to  one  of  the  parks , 
in  which  a  permit  was  granted  and  completed,  and  it  was  set  aside 
as  a  park,  that  one  permit  would  stand  in  operation,  but  all  the  rest 
of  it,  if  Congress  said  no  more  would  be  granted,  it  would  be  a  law 
and  therefore  there  would  be  only  one  permit  in  that  park  and  na 
further  development  would  be  made.  Is  that  your  view? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  Under  the  bill  as  it  now  reads,  it  would  apply  to 
present  parks  and  any  additions  or  any  new  parks  that  might  be 
created  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  So  that  hereafter  the  whole  parking  system  of  the 
United  States  would  be  subject  to  special  consideration  by  Congress, 
dealing  ^ith  any  individual  project  that  was  under  consideration, 
but  if  your  amendment  is  adopted  you  will  have  part  of  the  national 
park  system  that  is  subject  to  special  action  by  Congress  and  another 
part  of  the  national  park  system  which  may  be  dealt  with  by  the 
commission.  You  might  have  one  portion  of  a  given  park  which 
Congress  could  alone  deal  with  and  another  portion  of  the  same  park 
that  the  commission  could  deal  with.  Doesn't  that  give  rise  to 
confusion  and  contradiction  and  duplication  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mission and  Congress.  Where  is  the  objection  to  allowing  this 
general  law  to  apply  to  all  the  parks,  and  then  hereafter  if  the  situa- 
tion arises  that  needs  special  treatment  allow  Congress  to  do  that, 
rather  than  to  exempt  all  future  parks  now,  so  that  if  Congress  in 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       35 

creating  it  wants  to  put  it  under  the  general  law  it  must  affirmatively 
do  so  in  order  to  bring  it  in  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  that  should  he  considered  at  the  time  the 
parks  are  enlarged;  that  is,  when  the  question  comes  up  before 
Congress  as  to  the  enlargement  ,0!  the  parks,  or  the  creation  of  new 
ones. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  But  your  amendment  will  not  prevent  that  special 
consideration  if  Congress  wants  to  exempt  the  addition  or  the  new 
park  from  the  provisions  of  the  general  law.  Congress  can  still  deal 
with  it  separately  by  taking  it  out  from  under  the  provisions  of  the 
general  law  and  allow  the  commission  to  deal  with  it  separately, 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  suggest  this  amendment  in  the  desire  to  secure 
harmony  in  this  matter.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  bill,  but  I  know  that 
unless  its  operation  be  restricted  to  the  present  park  boundaries,  the 
present  areas,  it  is  going  to  meet  with  opposition  on  the  part  of  some 
Congressmen  and  Senators,  because  the  proposed  park — 

Mr.  BARKLEY  (interposing).  That  is  a  matter  that  may  develop 
during  the  consideration  of  the  bill  on  the  floor,  but  if  there  are 
enough  Members  who  want  to  put  in  an  amendment  of  this  sort, 
then  it  will  be  put  in. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  But  I  am  sure  that  if  the  amendment  which  I  suggest 
were  adopted  there  would  be  no  opposition  and  that  the  bill  would 
be  passed. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  The  thing  that  appeals  to  me  about  it  is  not  the 
matter  of  expediency,  whether  it  meets  with  opposition  or  not,  but 
whether  it  is  right  and  wise  as  a  policy. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Proposed  enlargement  of  present  park  boundaries,  as 
I  have  said,  contain  water  resources  which  are  absolutely  needed  for 
the  future  growth  of  California.  I  am  sure  I  speak  for  most  of  the 
people  of  the  Pacific  slope  when  I  say  that  much  as  they  desire  the 
passage  of  this  bill  which  you  have  under  consideration,  they  would 
object  to  it  unless  it  were  restricted  to  the  present  park  boundaries. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Which  do  you  mean,  the  general  public  or  the  men  who 
have  interests  there  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  The  general  public,  because,  Mr.  Sims,  we  of  the 
Pacific  coast  are  absolutely  dependent  upon  the  water  of  the  Sierra 
Nevada  Mountains  and  the  other  mountain  ranges  of  the  Pacific 
slope  for  our  very  life,  our  existence  and  our  growth.  Let  us  con- 
fine the  operation  of  this  bill  to  the  present  boundaries  of  the  parks. 
That  can  be  safely  done,  and  then  when  the  question  of  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  park  boundaries  comes  up,  let  Congress  decide  as  to 
whether  they  will  put  this  same  requirement  upon  the  enlarged 
boundaries. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  As  an  evidence  of  the  fact  that  Congress  is  not 
at  all  unmindful  of  that  situation,  two  years  ago  it  passed  a  bill 
applying  to  the  Hetch  Hetchy  project,  which  supplies  water,  I 
believe,  now  to  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  better  to  have 
not  only  all  the  parks  that  now  exist  but  all  the  future  parks  that 
may  be  created  under  one  general  law,  unless  in  the  creation  of  some 
particular  park  the  situation  is  so  exceptional  that  Congress  would 
take  it  without  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  and  leave  that  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  commission. 


36        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  am  sure  the  people  of  California  feel  that  unless  the 
operation  of  this  bill  were  restricted  to  the  present  park  boundaries, 
it  would  threaten  the  future  growth  of  their  State  because  the  park 
boundaries  might  be  enlarged  to  take  in  water  resources  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  increased  population.  So  I  suggest,  in 
the  interest  of  harmony,  and  because  I  want  to  see  this  bill  pass,  that 
we  confine  this  question  to  the  situation  as  it  exists  at  the  present 
day  and  to  the  present  park  boundaries,  and  then  I  don't  believe 
there  will  be  a  member  of  Congress  who  will  object  to  it. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  What  difference  does  it  make?  You  take  some 
of  these  areas  that  may  later  be  put  into  the  national  parks;  they 
are  open  now,  and  those  who  wish  to  file  on  them  can  do  so  and  gain 
rights  that  can  not  be  set  aside  by  subsequent  action  of  Congress. 
Isn't  that  true  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  it  is  true. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  What  more  do  you  want  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  The  people  of  the  Pacific  coast,  unless  the  operation 
of  this  bill  were  restricted  to  the  present  boundaries,  would  feel 
that  they  would  have  to  oppose  the  bill. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  In  other  words,  they  do  not  believe  that  Congress 
in  the  future  in  creating  parks  would  take  care  of  this  situation? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  They  might  not. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  I  think,  Mr.  Pierce,  your  idea  is  that  it 
would  sort  of  serve  notice  on  Congress  that  while  we  are  satisfied 
to  have  the  water  power  law  apply  to  the  present  parks,  we  would 
««t  be  willing  to  have  it  apply  to  parks  that  may  be  hereafter  created, 
unless  there  is  a  reservation  that  the  water  powers  may  be  used. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  so.  I  am  sure,  for  instance,  that  the  pro- 
posed Roosevelt  Park  for  the  establishment  of  which  there  is  a  bill 
now  before  Congress,  contains  water  resources  which  are  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  future  growth  of  central  and  southern  California, 
and  the  application  of  this  amendment  to  that  area  would  be  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  the  people  of  California. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  If  this  amendment  that  you  suggested  were  not 
adopted  and  the  law  applied  to  all  parks,  present  and  future,  and 
then  at  a  later  date  Congress  should  establish  the  Roosevelt  Park, 
would  it  not  be  an  easy  matter,  if  it  was  demonstrated  that  there 
were  water  powers  within  that  proposed  park  necessary  for  the  sus- 
tenarce  of  life  and  agriculture  in  southern  California,  for  Congress  to 
provide  in  the  act  creating  the  park  that  it  should  not  be  subject  to 
the  general  law,  but  should  be  subject  to  control  by  the  water-power 
commission  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  It  would  be  possible,  but  the  people  of  the  Pacific 
coast  are  willing  that  the  water  resources  of  these  parks  as  at  present 
constituted  should  be  withdrawn  from  use,  but  not  those  in  the 
enlarged  boundaries. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  It  is  conceivable  that  there  may  be  future  parks 
created  that  will  have  no  water  power  in  them. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes;  or  if  they  do  have  water  power  it  will  not  be  of 
such  exceptional  value  as  to  be  treated. in  that  way. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  In  that  case  Congress  would  have  to  affirmatively 
say  in  the  law  that  that  park  should  be  under  the  control  of  Congress 
and  not  of  the  commission.  Now  wouldn't  it  be  easier  for  Congress 
to  take  a  given  park  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  where  there 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       37 

are  exceptional  circumstances  than  it  would  be  to  put  affirmative 
provisions  in  every  park  law  providing  that  it  should  be  within  the 
discretion  of  Congress  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  that  question  should  come  up  at  the  time  the 
boundaries  of  the  park,  are  proposed  to  be  enlarged  or  new  ones 
created. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Suppose  your  amendment  is  not  accepted  and  what  I 
will  call  the  Payne  amendment  is  adopted,  then  under  the  Payne 
amendment  no  water  power  can  be  established  in  the  parks  as  now 
laid  out  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  No. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Without  action  of  Congress  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMS.  But  they  can  establish  on  all  the  rest  of  the  public  lands 
anywhere.  Now  why  do  you  wish  that  right  emphasized  by  your 
amendment  ?  i 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  do  not  think  the  water  resources  contained  within 
the  proposed  enlargements  of  the  parks  are  immediately  necessary  to 
California,  but  they  will  be  as  the  country  grows. 

Mr.  SIMS.  They  are  open  right  now  if  they  are;  now  why  do  you 
want  to  put  an  amendment  in  in  addition  to  that  when  they  are 
already  in  the  water-power  bill  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  sir,  I  know  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  the  people 
of  California  in  saying  that  they  think  this  amendment  should  be 
restricted  to  the  present  park  boundaries. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  They  are  not  very  enthusiastic  about  it  even  as  to 
that,  are  they? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  We]l,  they  are  willing  the  amendment  should  pass  if 
restricted  to  present  park  boundaries.  The  water,  is  necessary  to 
their  very  life,  as  you  know,  if  you  have  traveled  out  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  people  of  California  are  very  enthusiastic  in  re- 
gard to  maintaining  the  integrity  of  the  Yosemite  National  Park  as 
it  is. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  there  is  not  1  per  cent  of  the  people  of  California 
who  would  in  any  way  do  away  with  it,  with  its  beauty  and  the  util- 
ization of  the  park  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  for  the  benefit  of  creating  additional  territory  in 
the  parks  that  might  be  necessary,  and  wouldn't  your  amendment 
have  this  effect,  namely,  it  would  make  the  creation  of  the  park  easier, 
because  those  territories  wherein  you  could  use  it  for  water-power 
purposes,  the  parties  would  have  the  opportunity  to  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  matter  could  be  fully  explained  to  the  Con- 
gress, so  that  if  it  was  necessary  they  could  make  the  proper  provision 
in  the  bill,  an  affirmative  provision,  that  no  more  development 
should  be  made. 

Second,  while  this  is  being  done,  while  there  is  no  park  created  and 
none  added,  it  will  open  a  full  development  to  that  territory  and  allow 
men  to  go  in  without  the  fear  that  they  are  going  to  be  deprived  of 
their  rights  if  they  start  in. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  sir. 


38        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  KAKEK.  So,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  your  amendment  goes  in  it 
is  to  define  the  rights  ol  water  power  development,  but  primarily  if 
we  want  to  add  any  part,  it  gives  all  a  full  opportunity  for  a  hearing. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  It  does. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Pierce,  do  you  reside  in  California? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  reside  in  Seattle,  Wash. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  are  speaking  very  strongly  of  the  sentiment  in 
California,  as  if  you  represented  it,  and  I  rather  think  that  the  people 
are  not  as  aroused  over  the  question  and  have  not  expressed  them- 
selves so  definitely  as  to  warrant  the  statements  you  make.  I  have 
lived  there  all  my  life  I  was  born  there  and  I  am  pretty  well 
acquainted  with  the  sentiment,  and  I  think  the  people  are  very 
much  against — would  be  very  much  against  the  use,  for  instance,  of 
the  floor  of  the  King's  Rivor  Canyon  for  power  purposes,  for  flooding 
it  as  a  reservoir.  I  think  they  would  be  very  much  against  the  use 
of  the  floor  of  the  Kern  River  Canyon.  I  tnink  that  on  the  whole 
the  sentiment  would  be  in  favor  of  the  inclusion  of  those  two  great 
canyons,  which  are  comparable  to  the  Yosemite,  and  in  some  aspects 
grander  than  the  Yosemite,  in  the  national  parks,  but  I  do  believe 
they  would  be  against  any  ring  thrown  about  those  two  canyons 
with  the  statement  that  the}'  are  hallowed  ground  and  that  hereafter 
no  use  whatever  could  be  made  of  the  tremendous  water  powers 
there,  consistent  with  the  use  of  those  valleys  for  park  areas. 

In  other  words,  there  is  nothing  sacred  and  shall  be  nothing  sacred 
about  those  areas  if  later  on  when  the  great  needs  of  California  come 
for  water  power  and  so  on,  some  modified  use,  adjusted  use  could  be 
made  of  those  great  water  powers  consistent  with  park  purposes, 
modifying  to  some  extent  the  full  extreme  of  the  use  of  those  valleys 
for  park  purposes,,  not  to  the  extreme,  of  course,  of  flooding  those 
two  valleys.  Now  that  accords  with  my  opinion.  As  a  park  enthu- 
siast I  would  hate  to  be  drawn  to  the  extreme  of  saying  that  Cali- 
fornia eventually,  when  it  has  ten  or  fifteen  million  people,  shall 
never  touch  the  great  resources  of  those  great  rivers  which  comrrise 
practically  the  only  source  of  water  power  and  irrigation  for  the  whole 
of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  for  Southern  California.  So  I  think 
that  when  you  state  that  the  people  of  California  are  against  any 
inclusion  of  those  areas  in  the  parks,  you  are  speaking  a  little  strongly, 
but  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  use  of  those  as  a  thing  in  the  future;  I 
would  hate  to  see  that  thing  stamped  now  as  hallowed  ground  which 
nobody  can  touch  for  all  time. 

I  think  it  would  be  a  great  mistake.  To  that  extent  I  am  rather 
in  favor  of  your  suggestion  for  the  reason  that  I  think  it  would  facili- 
tate the  passage  of  acts  creating  and  enlarging — I  mean  creating 
new  parks  and  enlarging  present  boundaries,  because  if  the  amend- 
ment is  not  passed  I  think  we  will  have  rather  difficult  sledding  in 
getting  new  additions  to  any  parks.  I  am  the  author  of  the  Roosevelt 
bill  and  I  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Isn't  it  further  demonstrated  on  the  ground — we 
don't  have  to  take  any  theory — that  many  places,  in  particular  one, 
for  example,  Lake  Washington,  where  there  was  a  bare,  deep,  un- 
usable canyon,  where  to-day  we  find  a  beautiful  lake  and  quite  a 
little  city,  and  we  find  hundreds  of  people  building  summer  homes 
around  on  this  public  reserve,  and  we  are  getting  a  large  amount  of 
hydro-electric  energy  to  supply  those  farmers  below  and  those  towns; 
whereas,  if  it  was  tied  up  we  would  get  no  utilization  at  all. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       39 

Mr.  PIERCE.  That  is  so. 
Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  ought  not  to  be  done. 

Mr.  MATHER.  May  I  take  just  a  minute  to  clear  the  record  on  one 
or  two  matters,  Mr"  Chairman  ? 

STATEMENT     OF     MR.     STEPHEN     T.     MATHER,     DIRECTOR, 
NATIONAL  PARK  SERVICE. 

Mr.  MATHER.  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  committee  to  know 
that  in  the  present  Sequoia  Park,  which  would  become  part  of  the 
greater  Roosevelt  Park  which  has  been  referred  to,  there  is  already 
a  water  power  development.  The  Mount  Whitney  Power  Co.,  which 
is  now  a  component  part  of  the  Southern  California  Edison  Co.,  is 
actually  in  the  Sequoia  Park,  in  the  Sequoia  National  Park.  It  is 
in  the  foothill  region.  It  is  a  development  which  I  think  is  a  very 
proper  one.  It  does  not  interfere  with  the  scenic  area  above,  but 
it  was  created  under  a  special  authorization  from  Congress.  It  en- 
ables the  orange  lands  in  the  Porterville  section,  the  Exeter  section, 
and  the  Lindsay  section  to  be  properly  taken  care  of,  and  in  that 
particular  case  it  probably  was  a  very  necessary  development.  I 
bring  that  up  because  in  connection,  say,  with  the  present  park  it 
still  gives  Congress  an  opportunity  if  some  occasion  like  that  arises, 
to  enable  a  hydroelectric  development  to  go  in,  but  by  their  own 
action  instead  of  by  the  action  of  the  water  power  commission. 

While  I  am  thoroughly  in  favor  of  the  amendment  that  Mr.  Pierce 
proposes,  I  think  he  is  a  little  unduly  alarmed  in  regard  to  the  people 
of  California.  Of  course  I  think  what  he  has  in  mind  particularly  is 
the  development  of  the  Southern  California  Edison  Co.,  who  of  course 
are  providing  for  the  people  of  California,  rather  than  the  question 
of  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  California  as  a  whole.  Now  the 
development  of  the  Southern  California  Edison  Co.,  does  not  involve 
in  any  way  the  area  of  the  proposed  Roosevelt  Park,  but  that  does 
not  mean  that  in  some  future  time  there  may  not  be  the  need  of 
power  in  that  particular  area,  but  at  the  present  time  all  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Southern  California  Edison  Co. — and  they  have  pro- 
visions for  some  $200,000,000  of  work  to  be  carried  on — is  all  outside 
of  the  area  of  this  proposed  extension.  Of  course,  I  did  not  come 
here  to  talk  about  the  extension  of  the  parks,  but  I  thought  a  little 
statement  to  that  effect  would  be  advisable  at  this  time,  and  also 
the  fact  that  we  now  have  in  the  present  Sequoia  Park  a  power 
company  operating  there. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  Does  that  power  company  operate  through  a  special 
act  of  the  commission  or  of  Congress  ? 

Mr.  MATHER.  Of  Congress. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  That  is  exactly  my  viewpoint,  that  where  hereafter 
an  accessible  situation  arises,  either  in  the  creation  of  a  park  or  after 
it  is  created,  Congress  can  deal  with  it  separately.  Under  the  amend- 
ment which  is  proposed,  all  parks  hereafter  would  be  exempt  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  unless  Congress  in  the  act  specifically 
provided  that  it  should  not  be;  whereas  if  the  bill  is  left  like  it  is, 
all  parks  hereafter  created  will  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress, 
unless  Congress  says  by  affirmative  act  that  the  commission  shall  have 
power  to  determine  the  policy  in  that  particular  case. 


40        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  MATHER.  Mr.  Merrill,  bv  the  way,  just  called  my  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  creation  of  the  Mount  Whitney  Power  Co.  was  not 
due  to  specific  acts  of  Congress  covering  that  particular  company,  but 
the  act  of  1901  which  allowed  the  use  of  power  in  this  particular  park. 
But  at  the  same  time  I  will  say  that  I  think  the  law  at  that  time, 
while  somewhat  broader  in  its  nature,  was  the  act  which  created  this 
situation  in  regard  to  the  Mount  Whitnev  Power  Co. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  stated,  Mr.  Mather,  that  this  power  plant 
in  the  Sequoia  National  Park  did  not  in  anyway  interfere  with  the 
scenic  attractions  of  the  park  or  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
intended. 

Mr.  MATHER.  It  is  located  in  the  foothill  section  of  the  park. 

Mr.  SMITH:  of  Idaho.  I  am  curious  to  know  why  you  would  object, 
then  to,  the  creation  of  a  reservoir  which  certainly  is  much  more  at- 
tractive than  a  power  plant  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Yellowstone 
National  Park  in  a  remote  section  of  it. 

Mr.  MATHER.  Of  course  the  power  plants  themselves  are  located 
outside  the  park  but  the  flumes  and  the  water  they  obtain  are  in  the 
park  itself.  Then,  too,  in  this  proposed  Roosevelt  fark  country  there 
is  some  storage  in  the  high  country  far  above  the  timber  line.  There 
are  half  a  dozen  storage  reservoirs  up  on  the  Franklin  Lakes  up  on 
Franklin  Pass  at  an  elevation  of  about  11,000  feet.  I  have  been  at 
the  Sequoia  reservoirs  and  they  do  not  in  their  location  detract  from 
that  scenic  area,  but  if  they  were  lower  down  in  the  timbered  section 
they  would  make  considerable  difference. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  J.  PIERCE— Resumed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  through,  Mr.  Pierce? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Just  one  moment ,  sir.  I  wish  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that 
I  suggest  this  amendment  because  I  am  in  favor  of  the  bill.  I  want 
to  see  it  passed,  and  I  a'm  sure  that  if  its  operation  can  be  restricted 
to  the  present  boundaries  it  will  not  have  much,  if  any,  opposition, 
and  that  it  can  be  passed. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  did  wish  to  address  myself  to  the  other  bill  which 
you  have  before  you,  and  if  I  may  I  would  like  to  say  just  a  few  words 
regarding  it  and  then  file  this  paper  with  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  am  president  of  the  Washington  Irrigation  &  Devel- 
opment Co.,  which  has  made  application  to  the  Federal  Power  Com- 
mission for  a  permit  to  develop  the  water  power  now  wasting  in  the 
Pries  Rapids  of  the  Columbia  River,  located  in  the  central  part  of 
Washington,  having  a  capacity  of  400,000  primary  and  300,000  sec- 
ondary power,  and  which  is,  perhaps,  the  largest  possible  hydro- 
electric power  development  in  the  United  States,  aside  from  those 
contained  in  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Niagara  Rivers. 

I  know  that  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  all  of  the  127  applicants  who 
have  thus  far  applied  for  permits  to  develop  the  water  powers  of  the 
country  in  earnestly  favoring  H.  R.  15126,  the  bill  now  under  con- 
sideration by  your  committee. 

The  scope  of  the  work  that  the  power  commission  is  called  upon  to 
perform  is  very  great,  and  the  benefits  which  will  accrue  to  the  coun- 
try through  the  development  of  its  water  powers  will  be  enormous. 
As  has  been  said,  the  applications  thus  far  filed,  will,  if  taken  advan- 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       41 

tage  of,  mean  the  development  of  12,000,000  horsepower,  which  will 
cost  to  install  over  $1,;  00,000,000  and  w^ould  create  taxable  values  of 
that  amount.  The  labor  that  would  be  employed  would  require 
700,000  or  800,000  men  for  a  number  of  years,  would  save  the  mining 
of  70,000,000  tons  of  coal,  would  cheapen  the  cost  of  many  of  the 
necessities  of  life,  and  would  be  of  direct  benefit  to  every  inhabitant 
of  the  1  nited  States. 

The  foreign  nation?  —France,  Italy,  Switzerland,  Sweden,  and  other 
countries — immediately  after  the  close  of  the  war  turned  their  atten- 
tion to  the  development  of  their  water  powers.  The  shortage  of  coal 
during  the  war  had  given  them  a  tremendous  object  lesson  as  to  the 
value  of  power,  and  the  very  first  constructive  thing  they  did  was  to 
begin  the  utilization  of  their  wasting  water  powers.  The  foreign 
countries  have  very  cheap  labor,  which  we  have  not,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  their  water  powers  is  going  to  give  them  cheap  power,  and 
with  these  two  elements  of  cost  upon  a  very  low  basis  they  will  be 
placed  in  a  commanding  position  in  bidding  for  the  markets  of  the 
world.  We  do  not  have  cheap  labor  here,  and  if  we  are  going  to  com- 
pete with  them  in  exports  we  must  at  least  have  cheap  power  for 
industrial  use. 

We  have  in  our  western  country  over  10,000,000  acres  of  land  which 
can  not  be  reached  by  gravity  water  and  can  only  be  reclaimed  by 
water  pumped  by  the  electric  power  now  wasting  in  our  rivers  and 
streams.  It  would  require  fully  r, 000, 000  horsepower  to  operate 
these  pumping  plants.  An  agricultural  population  of  fully  [,00,000 
could  be  maintained  on  these  acres  and  the  products  would  materially 
tend  to  reduce  the  cost  of  living. 

The  electrification  of  1,000  miles  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St. 
Paul  Railroad  has  shown  such  economies  in  transportation  costs,  and 
which  are  something  over  30  per  cent,  that  all  the  railroads  west  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains  from  Mexico  to  British  Columbia  now  desire  to 
electrify  their  lines  and  they  can  not  do  so  until  the  water  power  is 
developed.  One- third  of  the  entire  carrying  capacity  of  a  railroad  is 
required  to  carry  coal  for  its  own  consumption. 

The  enactment  of  the  Federal  water-power  law  opens  up  an  enor- 
mous pioneer  field  for  enterprise.  Now  that  they  are  given  the  right 
to  work,  the  right  to  build  and  expend  and  develop,  the  right  to  help 
create  a  great  and  more  powerful  industrial  nation,  those  who  would 
develop  our  wasting  water  powers  will  reclaim  deserts  and  make 
farms,  build  factories  and  cities,  open  up  new  inland  waterways,  em- 
ploy labor,  reduce  the  cost  of  living,  increase  taxable  values,  and  thus 
promote  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  Nation. 

There  exists  in  every  portion  of  the  United  States  at  the  present 
time  an  acute  power  famine.  Seventy  per  cent  of  the  water  power 
resources  of  the  1  nited  States  are  located  west  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, while  80  per  cent  of  the  power  used,  whether  produced  from 
coal,  oil,  or  water  power,  is  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  yet  the 
shortage  of  power  is  relatively  as  great  upon  the  Pacific  coast  as  in 
the  large  industrial  and  thickly  populated  sections  of  the  East  and 
South. 

The  water-power  law  provides  that  licenses,  under  the  act  must 
pay  the  cost  of  administration  of  the  act,  so  that  eventually,  and  I 
should  say  beginning  in  1922,  the  Federal  Power  Commission  will,, 
through  the  revenues  derived  from  its  licenses,  be  self-sustaining. 


42        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

The  law  provides  that  they  must  secure  the  funds  necessary  for  ad- 
ministration purposes  from  appropriations  and  the  money  derived 
from  licenses  must  be  covered  in  the  Treasury,  but  in  this  indirect 
way  the  amount  derived  from  licenses  will  before  long  amount  to  as 
much  as  that  required  through  appropriations. 

The  commission  and  its  executive  secretary,  Mr.  Merrill,  have 
done  wonderfully  well  with  the  limited  personnel  and  employees  at 
their  disposal,  but  they  are  badly  handicapped  at  the  present  time 
by  lack  of  funds.  We,  who  wish  to  develop  the  water  power  of  the 
country,  are  anxious  to  go  to  work,  and  we  can  not  begin  until  the 
Federal  Power  Commission  grants  us  licenses,  and  they  can  not  do 
that  until  funds  are  placed  at  their  disposal  sufficient  to  make  neces- 
sary investigations.  The  need  for  development  of  the  water-power 
of  the  Nation  is  very  great,  and  I  trust  that  your  Committee  will  act 
favorably  and  quickly  upon  this  bill. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  opportunity  which  has  been 
accorded  me  to  be  heard  by  your  committee  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  You  probably  repre- 
sent commercial  interests  at  this  hearing  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  represent  the  Washington  Irrigation  &  Develop- 
ment Co.,  which  has  made  application  to  the  Federal  Power  Commis- 
sion for  a  license. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Have  you  anything  to  indicate  the  attitude  of  the 
people  at  large  on  the  Pacific  coast,  as  distinct  from  those  interested 
in  commercial  development  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  You  mean  in  what  respect  ? 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  In  any  respect. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  am  a  resident  of  the  coast.  I  know  how  the  people 
out  there  feel.  f 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  I  am  asking  for  the  testimony  of  the  people  there 
who  have  no  particular  and  direct  interest  in  the  development  of  the 
water  power. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  know  that  all  the  people  of  the  Pacific  coast  want 
the  water  powers  developed,  because  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
their  comfort  and  well-being  and  the  future  growth  of  the  localities 
in  which  they  live. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  I  understand  that  from  your  viewpoint,  but  have 
you  any  testimony  or  credentials  which  would  appear  to  warrant 
you  in  representing  the  people  on  the  Pacific  coast  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  that  I  could  get  a  multitude  of  letters  and 
telegrams  which  would  give  me  authority  to  represent  organizations, 
chambers  of  commerce,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Undoubtedly  you  may  get  them,  but  have  you  any 
such? 

Mr.  PIERCE.     I  have  not  in  my  pocket  at  this  time,  no,  sir. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Are  there  any  such  expressions  that  you  know  of  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  How  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  General  expressions  of  the  people  at  large  in 
respect  to  their  interest  in  this  proposition. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  am  a  member,  for  instance,  of  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  of  the  City  of  Seattle,  and  am  a  member  of  its  committees 
and  I  know  how  they  feel. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  I  don't  question  your  personal  view,  but  I  was 
wondering  if  you  had  any  expressions  which  you  could  offer  and 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       43 

put  in  the  record  as  indicating  the  registered  opinion  of  any  consider- 
able number  of  citizens  out  there  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  will  undertake  to  secure  them,  if  you  would  like, 
and  have  them  inserted  in  the  record  within  two  or  three  days.  I 
happened  to  be  in  the  East  and  I  appeared  before  this  committee. 
I  think  I  know  all  the  members  of  this  committee.  I  have  been  here 
for  the  past  seven  years  during  the  sessions  of  Congress  doing  what 
one  man  could  to  induce  the  passage  of  water  power  legislation  so 
that  I  could  develop  my  water  power,  and  so  that  incidentally  the 
other  water  powers  of  the  country  could  be  developed. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  The  answer  to  my  specific  inquiry  is  that  you 
haven't  the  goods,  isn't  it  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  don't  understand  you,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Probably  you  might  secure  the  cooperation 
of  some  of  these  experts  who  can  manufacture  sentiment  on  ex  parte 
statements,  if  you  wish  to  enter  into  the  plan  suggested  by  Mr. 
Winslow. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  I  don't  suggest  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Perhaps  these  propagandists — 

Mr.  WINSLOW  (interposing).  I  object  to  his  putting  words  into  my 
mouth.  I  said  nothing  of  the  kind.  I  am  asking  him  for  general 
expressions,  not  propaganda  expressions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  through,  Mr.  Pierce  ? 

Mr.  PIEECE.  I  am,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Pierce,  what  is  your  view  of  why  there  are  so 
many  applications  filed  all  at  once  with  the  water  power  commission 
under  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Why? 

Mr.  RAKER,  Yes.^ 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Because  of  the  necessity  for  water  power  develop- 
ment. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  must  be  very  favorable  to  the  water  power  people 
or  they  would  not  be  so  active  all  of  a  sudden.  Isn't  that  right? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  think  that  the  water  power  act  protects  every  public 
interest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  there  ought  to  be  time  sufficient  given  or  suf- 
ficient time  given  to  this  commission  to  work  over  these  matters  in 
a  proper  way  without  rushing  in  a  new  force  of  people  to  jam  them 
through  without  sufficient  investigation,  ought  there  not  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  I  am  informed  that  no  permits  or  licenses  have  thus 
far  been  granted  by  the  commission,  and  I  am  sure.  Judge  Raker, 
that  Mr.  Merrill,  as  the  executive  secretary  of  the  power  commission, 
is  not  going  to  grant  any  permits  or  licenses  until  those  investigations 
have  been  made. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  true,  but  they  have  got  the  War  Department, 
they  have  got  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  they  have  got  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  behind  them,  to  select  from  those  depart- 
ments any  men  they  want.  Now  what  I  am  getting  at  is  this — so 
we  may  be  plain — there  isn't  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  water 
power  people  to  get  a  corps  of  people  in  there,  not  under  the  civil 
service,  just  so  these  things  can  be  rushed  through,  is  there  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  No,  except  that  we  would  like  to  go  to  work  with  the 
development  of  these  water  powers.  The  necessity  is  great.  The 


44        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

people  need  the  power,  and  we  would  like  to  see  the  water  power 
commission  furnished  with  sufficient  force  to  do  their  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  still  with  the  good  old  staid  and  trusted  and 
true  officials  in  all  of  these  departments,  where  we  can  get  them,  we 
ought  to  give  them  time  enough  to  work  out,  to  see  whether  or  not 
these  applications  should  be  granted  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Yes,  if  they  can  obtain  them,  but  it  would  seem  from 
what  the  different  secretaries  have  said  that  they  are  all  pretty  bus}7 
with  the  work  of  the  departments  and  that  their  services  can  not 
be  obtained,  except  to  a  very  limited  extent. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  not  as  thoroughly  convinced  that  you  can  not 
find  the  people  in  the  department  yet  to  assist  in  doing  this  work,, 
and  I  am  just  wondering  why  the  power  people — and  I  am  putting 
this  in  a  kindly  way — are  anxious  themselves  to  force  a  larger  corps 
of  new  officers  in  a  new  branch,  to  open  it  up  so  that  these  permits 
may  be  rushed  through  in  a  hurry. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  If  the  Power  Commission  are  not  furnished  with  suffi- 
cient force  to  do  their  work  I  don't  believe  I  will  get  my  permit  in 
five  years  to  enable  me  to  go  ahead  with  the  development  of  the 
water  power  I  am  interested  in.  I  am  anxious  to  get  to  work.  I 
have  waited  for  seven  yours  while  Congress  has  been  considering 
water-power  legislation.  I  don't  believe  that  the  power  commission 
can  make  these  investigations  and  do  this  work  unless  they  have  the 
necessary  funds  placed  at  their  disposal. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  simply  asking  for  information.  Now,  just  one 
other  question — and  this  is  just  for  information — under  this  appli- 
cation of — what  is  the  company  '( 

Mr.  PIERCE.  The  Washington  Irrigation  &  Development  Co. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Washington  Irrigation  &  Development  Co. — -their 
application  is  for  how  much  horsepower  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Well,  for  the  development  of  the  all  possible  horse- 
power at  Priest  Rapids. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Approximately,  in  your  estimate,  what  will  it  be  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  400,000  primary  power,  and  then  during  the  summer,, 
during  the  irrigation  season,  300,000  extra  horsepower. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Located  where  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Located  in  the  Priest  Rapids  of  the  Columbia  River, 
in  the  central  part  of  the  State  of  Washington. 

Mr.  RAKER.  About  how  far  east  from  the  city  of  Portland  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  It  is  about  150  miles,  as  the  crow  flies,  east  of  Port- 
land— and  is  about  equally  distant  from  Seattle  and  Spokane. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  what,  under  your  application,  if  it  is  granted, 
would  you  expect  to  pay — does  this  company  contemplate  having  to 
pay  the  Government  for  this  use  ? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  We  would  have  to  pay  our  proportion  of  the  costs  of 
administration  of  the  act. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  is  all? 

Mr.  PIERCE.  And  for  the  use  of  certain  Government  lands  which  we 
would  have  to  use. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Pierce,  I  suppose  one  reason  why  there  has 
been  such  a  flood  of  applications  coming  upon  the  commission  is  the 
fact  that  there  have  been  no  grants  on  navigable  streams  for  10 
years. 

Mr  PIERCE.  That  is  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Rogers,  we  will  hear  you. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       45 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  J.  ROGERS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr.  KOGERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  so  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with 
the  so-called  Esch  bill  (H.  K.  14469)  that  it  perhaps  seems  captious 
even  to  suggest  why  I  prefer  the  bill  which  I  have  introduced  and 
which  is  numbered  14760. 

My  bill  in  its  terms  simply  excludes  from  the  water-power  act 
national  monuments  and  national  parks  of  the  United  States.  It 
seeks,  in  other  words,  to  leave  the  situation  to-day  and  hereafter 
.exactly  as  the  situation  would  have  been  if  the  Federal  water-power 
act  of  1920  had  never  included  or  referred  to  national  parks  and 
national  monuments. 

The  Esch  bill  in  lines  3  to  8,  page  1,  it  seems  to  me,  points  toward 
isomething  different.  Whether  it  is  intended  to  do  anything  beyond 
what  my  proposal  contemplates  I  am  not  quite  sure;  but  it  provides 
that  hereafter  no  permit,  and  so  forth,  within  any  national  park  or 
monument  shall  be  granted  or  made  without  specific  authority  of 
Congress.  I  do  not  see  wherein  that  adds  to  the  legislative  effect 
of  the  remainder  of  the  bill.  Clearly  that  authority  must  inhere  in 
Congress,  whether  or  not  it  is  expressed  in  the  bill  as  presented  to 
the  committee,  but  my  feeling  concerning  the  inclusion  of  that  lan- 
guage is  that  it  squints  toward  a  policy  of  granting  such  permits  or 
licenses  in  national  parks.  That  is  what  I  think  most  people  who 
are  interested  in  the  general  question  are  exceedingly  anxious  to 
avoid. 

It  is  for  that  reason  and  for  that  reason  only  that  I  should  prefer 
either  my  own  bill  or  an  amended  Esch  bill,  so  as  to  deal  only  with 
the  straight  repeal  of  the  portion  of  the  water-power  act  which  re- 
lates to  national  parks  and  national  monuments. 

Just  one  word  on  the  general  question — and  I  do  not  want  to  go 
into  details.  There  has  been  propoganda,  no  doubt,  in  support  of 
this  measure,  but  the  appeals  that  have  come  to  me  seem  to  be 
appeals  from  men  and  women  who  are  unselfishly  anxious  to  protect 
the  integrity  of  our  national  parks.  People  have  come  to  me  and 
have  written  to  me  who  have  never  been  in  the  national  parks  and 
never  expect  to  be  able  to  afford  to  go  to  the  national  parks  and 
have  asked  that  this  protection  be  afforded  for  the  future.  I  hope 
that  the  committee,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  be  able  to  report  out  and 
to  secure  the  passage  promptly  of  legislation  to  preserve  the  integ- 
rity of  our  national  parks. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  J.   PIERCE— (Resumed). 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  quite  a  number  of  witnesses  from  out  of 
town  who  desire  to  be  heard,  and  if  agreeable  we  will  recess  until  2 
o'clock  this  afternoon.  I  hope  as  many  members  of  this  committee 
as  possible  will  be  present  at  that  time. 

Mr.  PIERCE.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  there  is  no  objection,  I  would  like 
the  privilege  of  inserting  in  the  record,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Winslow's 
questions,  a  short  statement  as  to  how  I  came  to  be  here  to-day,  and 
whom  I  am  in  a  way  representing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 


46        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  BARKLEY.  That  does  not  include  any  resolutions  or  telegrams 
or  letters  in  the  future,  does  it  ? 
Mr.  PIERCE.  No;  it  does  not. 
The  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  Pierce  is  as  follows : 

Answering  Mr.  Winslow's  inquiry:  I  have  made  no  claim  before  the  committee  or 
elsewhere  to  speak  in  any  representative  capacity  for  the  general  public  of  the  Pacific 
Coast,  though  I  believe  I  know  pretty  well  how  they  feel  regarding  the  matters  which 
have  been  under  discussion  this  morning.  As  is  well  known  to  most  of  the  members 
of  this  committee,  I  am  the  president  of  a  company  intending  to  make  a  large  water- 
power  development  on  the  Columbia  River.  During  the  course  of  recent  water- 
power  legislation  I  have  been  in  close  touch  with,  and  frequently  the  spokesman  for, 
other  persons  and  corporations  similarly  situated.  In  the  present  instance,  being  in 
Washington  in  connection  with  my  application  for  a  permit  for  the  power  develop- 
ment in  which  I  am  interested,  I  was  requested  by  the  officers  of  the  Southern  Cali- 
fornia Edison  Company  of  Los  Angeles,  which  supplies  a  large  part  of  southern  Cali- 
fornia with  power,  light,  as  well  as  water  for  irrigation  purposes,  and  also  by  the  Utah 
Power  and  light  Company  and  the  Idaho  Light  and  Power  Company,  both  of  which 
companies  have  their  headquarters  in  New  York  City,  and  also  by  the  president  of 
the  Pacific  Power  &  Light  Co.  of  Portland,  Oreg.,  who  is  now  in  the  East,  to  confer 
with  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Pavne  and  Director  of  Parks  Mather,  concerning  a 
proposed  amendment  of  H.  R.  14469,  restricting  its  scope  to  park  boundaries  as  now 
constituted,  and,  if  in  agreement  with  them  in  regard  to  the  amendment,  to  appear 
before  this  committee  and  suggest  the  amendment.  This  I  have  done. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.20  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  recessed  until 
2  o'clock  p.  m.  this  day.) 

AFTER    RECESS. 

The  committee  reconvened  at  2.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  John  J. 
Esch  (chairman)  presiding. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  HORACE  McFARLAND,  CHAIRMAN, 
LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  PARKS  COM- 
MITTEE; PRESIDENT  AMERICAN  CIVIC  ASSOCIATION, 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  am  here  as  chairman  of  the  legislative  com- 
mittee of  the  National  Parks  Association,  which  has  an  office  in 
New  York  and  there  represents  some  35  national  organizations,  the 
names  of  which  I  shall  be  glad  to  submit  for  the  record,  that  have 
joined  together  in  defense  of  the  national  parks.  I  am  also  president 
of  the  American  Civic  Association,  an  organization  with  2,500 
members,  country- wide  in  its  extent,  which  has  had  much  to  do 
with  the  formation  of  the  National  Park  Service  under  which  the 
parks  are  now  controlled. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  approach  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  one 
of  the  two  or  three  bills  before  you  proposing  to  correct  the  inadver- 
tency, let  us  say,  under  which  the  Federal  water  power  act,  which 
we  all  heartily  favor,  extended  its  provisions  to  the  national  parks  and 
monuments. 

It  happens  that  our  organization  and  members  of  it  had  close  con- 
tact with  Senator  Jones  and  with  Judge  Payne  during  those  days 
following  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in  the  early  days  of  June,  1920, 
before  tne  signing  of  the  Federal  water  power  bill  because  we  seen  a 
very  great  danger  to  the  national  parks  which  we  desired  to  see 
averted.  It  did  not  seem  to  us  a  proper  thing  to  ask  the  President 
to  veto  the  bill,  because  of  the  tremendous  beneficences  that  were 
involved  in  its  proper  application.  I  wish  to  place  that  phase  of  the 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       47 

matter  clearly  before  the  committee,  and,  if  I  may,  to  establish  the 
standpoint  of  a  common  sense  study  of  the  situation. 

Mr.  RAKEK.  So  we  do  not  get  too  far  afield,  and  you  do  not  appeal 
to  the  hearts  of  the  committee  with  those  matters,  have  you  ever 
looked  upon  the  question  to  determine  in  your  own  mind  the  asso- 
ciation '?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  under  the  law,  did  the  Secretary  have 
the  power  before  the  enactment  of  the  water  power  bill  to  authorize 
the  construction  of  dams,  ditches,  and  so  forth,  through  the  national 
parks  ? 

Mr.  McFARLAND.  That  varied  in  different  parks.  As  you  probably 
will  remember,  each  separate  park  had  a  different  enactment.  It 
began  with  the  Yellowstone  in  1872,  and  the  acts  varied  so  it  would 
be  hard  to  say  generally  just  what  the  Secretary  may  have  found 
himself . either  permitted  to  do.  Generally  speaking,  when  the  Na- 
tional Park  Service  was  founded,  it  was  assumed  that  the  parks  were 
then  in  some  such  situation  as  the  Forest  Service.  In  fact,  as  one 
who  had  to  do  with  the  writing  of  that  act,  although  it  was  much 
changed  afterward,  I  know  that  what  we  were  trying  to  do  was  to 
establish  a  parallel  service  with  the  Forest  Service  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  have  Congress  declare  the  purpose  of  the 
national  parks,  which  was  really  a  high  and  spiritual  purpose ;  a  pur- 
pose to  constitute  the  need  of  the  nation  for  recreation  as  a  definite 
need. 

Fortunately  the  act  itself  does  carry  the  phrase  originally  put  into 
it  by  Frederic  Law  Olmsted,  unquestionably  the  ablest  landscape 
architect  in  the  United  States,  declaring  the  purpose  of  the  parks. 
But  in  the  present  situation  we  see  a  danger  to  the  parks.  We  have 
asked,  therefore,  that  it  be  removed  by  putting  things  back  as  nearly 
as  possible  where  they  were  before  the  Federal  water  power  act  was 
signed  and  made  law. 

It  has  been  said  that  a  very  vigorous  propaganda  has  been  con- 
ducted in  order  to  awaken  the  people  to  the  situation.  I  think  there 
can  not  be  any  doubt  of  that.  The  propaganda,  however,  has  been 
very  different  from  many  similar  efforts  made  in  many  cases.  It  was 
a  wholly  unselfish  propaganda,  without  any  possibility  of  personal 

§ain  to  any  of  those  engaged  in  it,  to  ask  the  people  of  the  United 
tates  whom  we  were  able  to  reach  what  they  thought  of  the  situation, 
and  if  they  did  think  the  national  parks  should  be  preserved  free 
from  commercialism  for  all  the  people,  to  say  so  to  their  delegated 
representatives  in  Congress.  They  seem  to  have  so  pronounced 
themselves  rather  freely  all  over  the  United  States.  Floods  of  letters 
have  reached  us  in  the  return  way,  very  many  times  with  misunder- 
standings in  them.  The  propaganda,  as  covered  by  the  American 
Civic  Association  leadership  and  by  the  committee  which  I  represent, 
included  no  inaccuracy  in  its  statements — all  obtained  from  the 
Federal  park  service. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  there  need  be 
any  argument  about  that  broad  question  itself.  You  have  all,  without 
exception,  shown  your  devotion  to  the  parks.  You  are  now  asvked  to 
correct  an  error  and  the  circumstances  have  been  detailed  to  you. 
No  fault  lies  with  Congress  in  this  matter.  The  fault  is  that  we  who 
are  presumed  to  be  active  in  the  public  interests  did  not  wake  up  in 
time  to  urge  Members  of  Congress  to  avoid  this  error. 


48        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Of  course,  many  of  us  are  fortunate  enough  to  get  on 
these  committees  that  have  been  very  active  on  the  parks.  My 
associate,  Mr.  Taylor,*  and  myself  have  been  on  the  Public  Lands 
Committee,  and  there  have  been  more  parks  created  since  we  have 
been  on  that  committee  than  during  any  space  of  time,  but  the  bills 
creating  the  national  park  service  have  been  worked  in  the  same  way 
and  I  have  been  following  it  for  the  last  six  years.  So,  you  see,  the 
members  of  the  committee  are  not  adverse  to  legislation  in  regard 
to  the  national  parks.  Then,  to  safeguard  the  matter,  you  say  it  is 
an  error  to  safeguard  the  matter.  I  just  want  to  state  that  the  com- 
mittee ought  to  have  the  benefit  of  what  they-  did  do.  We  so  pro- 
vided in  the  law  that  if  the  department  desired  it  could  prohibit 
water  power  development  in  the  parks.  Is  not  that  true  ? 

Mr.  McFABLAND.  Absolutely,  yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  it  is  a  question  to  just  simply  leave  it  or  take 
it  from  the  Water  Power  Commission  and  put  it  into  the  hands  of 
Congress  f 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Exactly.  There  could  not  have  been  a  better 
statement  on  the  subject  than  that  made  this  morning  by  Judge 
Payne. 

Sir.  RAKER.  I  know  you  are  interested  in  this  matter,  and  still  I 
think  the  committee — while  I  am  not  protecting  the  committee — I 
just  wish  to  feel  that  the  public  ought  to  know  that  this  committee 
did  not  leave  the  national  parks  so  that  they  could  be  devastated  or 
so  that  they  could  be  used  unless  the  throe  Secretaries  determined 
that  fact,  which  would  be  the  same  thing  as  if  it  was  left  up  to  Con- 
gress. But  we  really  did  protect  the  parks  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  think  the  intent  to  -protect  the  parks  was  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Not  only  the  intent  but  they  can  be  protected  under 
the  law. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  They  can  be  protected  if  the  situation  of  juxta- 
position of  the  three  Secretaries  happens  to  be  such  as  we  now  have. 
The  incoming  President  can  bettor  tell  you  what  might  happen.  1 
could  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  am  getting  at  is  that  the  law  is  on  the  statute 
books  now  under  which  the  parks  can  bo  absolutely  protected. 

Mr.  Me  /FAULAND.  If  you  will  read  that,  you  will  discover  that  no 
provision  is  made  for  hearings  under  this  law;  that  these  petitions 
are  made  directly  to  the  Water  Power  Commission.  They  can  grant 
them  and  the  public  does  not  get  a  chance  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  intended  to  ask  that  question  this  morning  of  the 
two  or  three  Secretaries.  I  wrote  a  letter  to  the  executive  secretary 
for  more  definite  information.  I  think  he  will  tell  this  committee 
that  whenever  an  application  is  made  that  full  opportunity  will  be 
given  with  hearings  set  and  both  sides  will  be  heard.  Is  that  right, 
Mr.  Merrill  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  The  only  thing  I  am  getting  at  is  that  for  the  public 
I  do  not  feel  like  sitting  idly  by  and  allowing  myself  to  be  put  in  an 
attitude  that  I  have  deliberately  abandoned  the  policy  we  created  or 
which  was  created  by  the  committee  of  which  we  were  members,  and, 
in  addition  to  that,  when  we  did  in  that  bill  absolutely  protect  the 
parks.  ,  Personally,  I  have  no  objection  to  the  method  of  legislation 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       49 

and  I  think  it  is  all  right,  but  you  will  have  to  admit,  Mr.  McFarland, 
if  you  read  the  law,  that  we  did  protect  the  national  parks. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  have  no  doubt  that  such  is  the  intent,  and  no 
criticism  has  been  made  of  this  committee  or  of  Congress  for  doing  the 
thing  you  speak  of.  The  criticism  is  altogether  of  ourselves  for  not 
having  noticed  the  fact  that  the  parks  and  monuments  were  in- 
cluded. 

Mr.  RAKER.  When  we  included  them  that  was  with  eyes  open  and 
then  we  protected  them. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  We  are  asking  you  to  make  the  situation  better. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  take  it  from  the  commission  and  put  it  into 
Congress  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Congress  created  the  parks.  We  ought,  there- 
fore, to  have  Congress  continue  to  control  them. 

Mr.  SMITH.  For  what  reasons  do  you  wish  to  have  this  bill  passed 
and  this  provision  of  the  water-power  law  amended  ?  What  is  the 
real  reason  for  it  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  The  reason  is  stated  in  the  preamble  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  because  you  distrust  the  judgment  of  three 
cabinet  officers  ?  Might  it  have  been  for  that  reason  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Most  assuredly  I  would  not  answer  that  in  any 
such  fashion. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  reason  you  want  this  bill  passed 
is  because  you  are  able  to  create  by  propaganda  a  public  sentiment 
which  would  prevent  the  impartial  consideration  of  any  bill  by  Con- 
gress intended  to  utilize  the  water  powers  of  the  national  parks  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  If  I  wanted  to  get  a  twisted  angle  to  a  statement 
of  a  thing,  I  would  ask  you  to  frame  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  a  flippant  way  to  answer.  You  can  answer  the 
question  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  will  not  answer  that  yes  or  no,  because  I  do  not 
want  to  be  put  in  a  false  position. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  remember  the  hearing  we  had  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  last  spring  on  the  25th  of  May  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  you  made  the  statement  that  you  could  reach 
5,000,000  people.  Allow  me  to  congratulate  you  on  your  success. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Did  I  make  good  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  certainly  did.  and  probably  reached  more  than 
5,000,000  people,  but  it  seems  to  me  you  reached  them  largely  through 
ex  parte  statements.  Except  one  instance  I  think  you  have  acted 
very  consistently  and  conservatively  about  your  statements,  but  a 
lot  ~of  people  have  made  misstatements  and  to  such  an  extent,  as  I 
remarked  this  morning,  that  there  has  been  a  scare  thrown  into  the 
members  of  Congress  and  Senators.  In  one  of  your  circulars  you 
make  this  statement,  "The  national  parks  are  in  imminent  peril/' 
That  would  naturally  impress  anyone  who  would  see  it,  and  thev 
would  be  very  much  concerned  about  it  and  apprehensive  that  the 
national  parks  were  in  immediate  peril.  Through  such  advertise- 
ments as  this  of  your  association  and  numerous  other  organizations, 
you  have  been  able  to  influence  members  of  Congress  against  a  proposi- 
tion concerning  which  they  know  nothing,  except  in  a  general  way,  so 

29414—21 4 


50        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

that  now  instead  of  listening  to  an  impartial  statement,  simply  say, 
"we  do  not  want  to  talk  about  the  subject  and  will  not  have  anything 
to  do  with  it." 

The  reason  you  and  your  associates  are  anxious  to  have  this  law 
amended  is  to  be  able  to  -arouse  the  American  people,  and  through 
them  influence  their  Representatives  in  Congress  to  refrain  from  doing 
something  which  otherwise  their  judgment  would  dictate  they  should 
do,  if  they  were  not  influenced  adversely  by  extravagant  and  erro- 
neous statements. 

Mr.  McFARLAND.  You  do  me  entirely  too  much-  credit,  Mr.  Smith. 
I  have  more  faith  in  the  American  people  and  in  Congress  to  believe 
that  either  of  them  can  be  stampeded. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  certainlv  can  not  take  that  attitude  after  you  have 
seen  what  has  transpired  here  since  last  May.  In  your  resolutions 
submitted  to  the  Committee  on  Rules  we  find  several  whereases,  one 
of  which  whereas  is  as  follows :  ' '  Whereas  Stephen  T.  Mather,  Director 
of  the  National  Park  Service,  has  stated  that  raising  these  lakes  will 
kill  millions  of  feet  of  timber,  wipe  out  millions  of  trails,  and  create  a 
scene  of  choas  and  destruction  that  would  be  an  eyesore  for  a  thou- 
sand years,"  etc. 

That  resolution  was  presented  by  you  in  opposition  to  bill  12466 
which  does  not  provide  for  the  draining  of  lakes,  but  for  the  construc- 
tion of  reservoirs  in  an  obscure  section  of  the  park  where  there  are 
no  roads  or  trails  and  scarcely  any  timber. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  think  Mr.  Mather  is  here  and  he  can  take  care 
of  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  can  not  get  out  of  it  that  way.  These  resolutions 
are  signed  by  you.  You  are  the  mover  in  the  opposition  in  regard  to 
the  Fall  River  Basin  and  other  projects  in  the  Yellowstone  Park. 
This  statement  has  no  reference  to  my  bill,  but  to  another  project. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Mr.  Gregg,  who  follows  me,  will  take  care  of  that 
by  direct  testimony. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  want  to  repudiate  your  own  statement,  and  Mr. 
Gregg  can  help  you  do  that,  let  the  record  show. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Our  statements  are  all  based  on  those  of  a  man 
who  knows  the  facts. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Would  you  attempt  to  confuse  the  Yellowstone  with 
the  Falls  River  Basin  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  No,  sir;  I  admit  nothing  and  deny  nothing  to  you. 
I  will  not  answer  questions  framed  as  you  Frame  them. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  are  able  to  make  a  favorable  impression  on  the 
committee  with  that  kind  of  an  answer,  I  shall  be  very  much  sur- 
prised. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  wish  to  discuss  the  matter  from  the  standpoint 
of  public  spirit,  and  I  expect  to  do  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  you  tried  to  deceive  the  Committee  on  Rules  when 
you  presented  that  resolution. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  There  was  no  attempt  to  deceive,  and  there  was 
no  deception.  May  I  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close  and  say  that  the 
American  Civic  Association  and  other  organizations  associated  to- 
gether for  public  purposes,  are  purely  philanthropic  organizations. 
They  ardently  hope  that  the  committee  will  make  a  favorable  report 
on  one  of  the  several  bills  which  would  place  the  determination  of  any 
alterations  or  changes  in  the  national  parks  in  the  hands  of  Congress 


PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       51 

itself,  and  remove  that  jurisdiction  from  the  Water  Power  Commis- 
sion, all  members  of  which,  at  the  hearing  this  morning,  desired  such 
action. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Was  your  organization  interested  when  we  had  up 
the  Hetch-Hetchy  bill,  so  called  ? 

Mr.  McF'ARLAXD.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Did  your  organization  oppose  that  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  you  examined  into  the  matter  since  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  have  not  been  in  the  Hetch-Hetchy  since. 
I  was  there  before  the  legislation  prevailed.  Afterwards  I .  shook 
hands  with  the  city  engineer  of  San  Francisco,  admitted  that  I  was 
licked,  and  we  have  been  good  friends  ever  since. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you,  or  does  your  organization,  still  oppose  that, 
or  have  you  approved  it  since  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAXD.  Having  had  no  personal  contact  with  it  I  would 
not  be  in  shape  to  say  anything  because  I  have  not  heard  from  it. 
I  do  not  know  whether  the  result  has  been  satisfactory  or  not. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  just  wanted  to  know  the  attitude  of  your  organiza- 
tion toward  that,  whether  you  still  thought  it  was  a  mistake  to  have 
granted  that  franchise. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  cheerfully  answer  that:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Without  even  looking  into  it  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  I  was  there  before  the  franchise  was  granted. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  have  not  been  there  since  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  been  there  and  it  has  made  a  beauty  spot 
where  it  was  not  before.  It  put  money  into  that  park  where  tHey  did 
not  have  it  before  and  where  we  could  not  get  an  appropriation  of 
a  cent  from  eastern  Congressmen  to  help  us  develop  parks,  and  it 
has  made  that  more  beautiful.  I  do  not  want  you  to  hit  at  the  Hetch- 
Hetchy  when  it  is  a  success. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  You  will  admit  I  am  not  anxious  to. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  want  to  go  too  far.  I  will  put  this  question 
and  then  I  am  through. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Before  you  do,  may  I  make  a  statement  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Sure. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  In  the  matter  of  the  Hetch-Hetchy  you  asked 
a  question  which  requires  a  direct  answer,  and  I  answered  according 
to  my  own  convictions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Under .  section  4,  that  the  commission  is  hereby 
authorized  and  empowered  to  do  certain  things,  issue  licenses,  and 
so  forth,  provided  that  licenses  shall  be  issued  within  any  reservation 
only  after  a  finding  by  the  commission  that  the  license  will  not  inter- 
fere or  be  inconsistent  with  the  purpose  for  which  such  reservation 
was  created  or  acquired  and  shall  be  subject  to  and  contain  such 
conditions  as  the  secretary  of  the  department  under  whose  super- 
vision such  reservation  falls  shall  deem  necessary  for  the  adequate 
protection  and  utilization  of  such  reservation. 

Now,  you  have. been  advised  that  the  department  has  been  so 
careful,  that  is,  this  Water  Power  Commission  that  they  have  not 
even  excepted  anything  further.  Is  that  right  ? 


52        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Yes,  sir;  they  held  up  all  applications  awaiting 
action  of  Congress,  as  you  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  not  your  organization  have  sufficient  confidence 
in  the  commission  and  its  secretary  to  believe  that  they  would  under 
this  positive  declaration  of  the  law  protect  the  public  interests  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  The  answer  to  that,  Judge  Raker,  is  that  I  wish 
I  could  make  it  in  words  one-tenth  as  adequate  to  the  subject  as  those 
you  heard  this  morning  from  Judge  Payne.  His  attitude  was  that 
the  fundamental  reason  for  constituting  the  parks  was  at  stake  and 
that  ought  not  to  be  taken  before  any  commission  or  secretaries. 
I  could  not  hope  to  state  it  better  than  Judge  Payne  stated  it  or 
one-tenth  as  well  as  he  stated  it. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  C.  GREGG,  HACKENSACK,  N.  J. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Technically  I  represent  the  National  Art  Club  of  New 
York  City.  I  also  represent  that  body  of  the  American  people  who 
love  to  go  to  the  parks  in  the  summer  time  and  enjoy  them. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  represent  us  all,  then. 

Mr.  GREGG.  All  right.  I  take  the  responsibility,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  say  that  I  represent  the  whole  people.  I  have  very  little  with 
which  to  take  up  your  time  unless  Mr.  Smith  wants  to  go  into  thor- 
oughly before  this  committee  the  question  of  the  so-called  Falls 
River  Basin  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  the  park.  I  was  up  there 
for  three  weeks  and  camped  in  there,  and  the  conclusion  of  our  party 
of  six  was  unanimous  that  it  was  not  a  swamp.  I  took  a  number  of 
photographs  and  have  a  lot  of  data,  and  I  found  what  I  consider  to 
be  a  large  amount  of  water  storage  available  just  outside  of  the  park. 
I  had  an  aneroid  barometer  and  took  notes  and  photographs. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  time  of  the  year  were  you  in  there  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Just  after  Mr.  Smith,  this  summer.  I  was  in  there  in 
August  and  stayed  there  until  the  first  few  days  of  September. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  the  dry  season  in  there  or  the  wet  season  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  the  dry  season  in  the  parks.  I  am  ready  to 
go  into  it  in  all  of  its  phases.  I  have  a  lot  of  data  here  if  I  am  to 
make  answer  to  Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Smith  was  in  there,  as  he  admits, 
for  one  day,  or  a  portion  of  one  "day,  and  I  stayed  there  for  three 
weeks.  We  camped  in  several  places  right  in  the  swamps.  We  did 
not  know  any  better  than  to  camp  right  in  the  swamp.  If  you  would 
like  I  will  show  some  of  these  photographs. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Let  me  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Wait  just  a  moment.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know 
how  far  you  want  to  go  into  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  not  a  direct  matter.  It  is  another  col- 
lateral matter. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  just  the  point. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  feel  some  discretion  ought  to  be  allowed  Mr. 
Smith  in  cross-examination  on  the  matter  because  he  is  the  one  who 
introduced  the  original  bill. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Let  me  make  two  points,  then.  Here  is  a  picture  of 
our  camp  where  we  stayed  several  nights  in  the  swamp. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  If  Mr.  Gregg  is  to  confine  himself  to  the  general 
features  of  the  matter,  take  this  bill  without  reference  to  disturbing 
the  Yellowstone,  I  think  he  had  better  do  it  now  before  we  get  into 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       53 

the  intricacies  of  the  other  matter.     Then  we  can  decide  on  the  other 
phases  of  it. 

Mr.  GREGG.  If  Mr.  Smith  will  let  me  finish  that  part  before  we  get 
into  this  thing  haphazard  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  can  liot  add  anything  to  the  excellent  presentation 
that  Mr.  McFarland  has  made.  I  have  this  suggestion,  however, 
that  I  lived  as  a  young  man  for  a  great  many  years  in  the  West,  the 
first  half  of  my  active  life  was  in  the  West,  and  for  the  last  20  years 
I  have  been  in  New  Jersey.  As  I  go  out  and  look  over  the  western 
problems,  as  I  have  studied  the  reclamation  department,  and  its 
activities,  I  feel  that  the  West  and  East  are  not  quite  close  enough 
together  on  this  problem  of  working  out  irrigation  and  power  in  the 
West,  West  of  the  Mississippi  there  is  two-thirds  of  the  area  of  the 
United  States  and  only  30  per  cent  of  its  population. 

It  has  a  great  many  problems  and  the  population  is  necessarily  in 
the  minority.  We  can  get  together  on  a  great  many  things  if  we  can 
understand  each  other  and  if  concessions  can  be  made.  I  believe 
thoroughly  in  my  investigation  of  all  these  problems  that  the  West 
wants  to  make  more  money,  to  be  more  prosperous,  to  build  themselves 
up.  Nobody  can  object  to  that.  Irrigation  will  do  that  and  power 
will  do  it.  We  only  draw  the  line  at  the  boundaries  of  the  national 
parks.  That  is  a  clear-cut  issue  which  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States  can  understand.  The  rest  of  the  program  is  more  complicated. 
I  am  prepared  to  come  to  Washington,  and  to  go  out  West  to  help 
work  out  the  question  of  how  this  water  is  to  be  stored  outside  the 
parks,  and  where  appropriations  may  be  advisable  by  Congress  to 
work  out  the  whole  development  of  the  National  Parks  and  the 
territory  immediately  around  there.  Individually  I  see  no  objection 
to  the  clause  that  was  discussed  this  morning.  I  speak  of  Mr.  Pierce's 
suggestion.  That  brings  the  two  sections  of  the  country  a  little 
closer  together.  I  do  not  know  that  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  any  of 
the  other  20  odd  organizations,  but  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
shy  off  from  one  another.  I  know  the  men  from  out  West  feel  that 
they  are  not  understood.  I  want  to  say  this,  however,  that  many 
loose  statements  are  made  from  the  western  advocates  of  their  particu- 
lar interests.  If  you  want  to  bear  with  me  I  could  cite  a  number  of 
those.  I  deprecate  loose  statements,  East  or  West;  they  are  not  by 
any  means  confined  to  the  East.  I  do  not  think  I  have  anything 
else  to  add  to  this  except  the  feeling  that  we  should  get  together  and 
work  these  things  out,  and  that  the  parks  should  and  must  be  main- 
tained in  their  integrity. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  aware  of  this  fact,  that  at  least  10  of  the  last 
parks  created  have  been  created  by  the  activity  and  constant  work, 
battling  against  the  East  to  create  them,  and  the  objections  come 
from  eastern  men,  eastern  representatives. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  have  no  sympathy,  Judge,  whatever,  with  men  who 
sit  down  and  take  an  arbitrary  stand.  These  are  great  questions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  we  hate  to  be  criticised  when  we  try  to  preserve 
the  parks  and  when  we  protect  the  parks  and  they  come  out  and  use 
them,  and  we  find  our  eastern  representatives  battling  against  us  to 
get  any  care  and  attention  to  these  parks  when  they  ought  to  help 
us  appropriate  money  to  put  them  in  shape. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  agree  with  you  entirely  and  I  am  ready. 


54        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  does  not  your  organization  get  behind  proper, 
legitimate,  and  reasonable  appropriations  to  put  these  parks  in 
proper  use  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  give  us  a  lead  and  I  think  we  can  give  you  quite 
a  following. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  lead  is  to  go  and  get  your  members  of  Congress 
to  help  us  out. 

Mr.  GREGG.  What  is  the  proposition  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Get  them  to  vote  for  our  appropriations  instead  of 
fighting  against  them  so  we  may  get  something  for  the  West.  We 
want  playgrounds  in  the  first  place  and  we  don  t  want  you  when  we 
have  made  them  and  taken  care  of  them  and  you  folks  use  them  and 
do  not  want  to  pay  any  of  the  cost  of  maintenance,  to  criticise  us 
for  maintaining  our  own  property  and  providing  for  the  future  when 
we  have  been  more  active  than  you  fellows  in  the  East.  It  does  not 
strike  us  as  just  right. 

Mr.  GREGG.  In  investigating  the  reclamation  reports  I  find  that 
12  or  15  years  ago,  1902,  I  believe,  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  public 
lands  were  turned  into  the  United  States  Treasury  to  be  expended  in 
reclamation  propositions  for  the  West.  That  took  out  of  the  United 
States  Treasury  something  over  $100,000,000  of  money  that  belonged 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  No  interest  has  been  paid  on 
any  of  it  and  no  interest  is  expected  and  I  have  never  heard  of  people 
in  the  East  or  any  part  of  the  United  States  object  to  it.  That  was  a 
big  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  has  been  a  battle  royal  for  10  years  to  my  personal 
knowledge,  to  hold  the  reclamation  projects  on.  They  are  always 
criticising  us  in  regard  to  irrigation  and  we  are  paying  every  dollar 
back  but  what  we  want  is  to  develop  the  country  and  pay  back  every 
dollar  of  it. 

Mr.  GREGG.  But  the  paying  back  is  not  always  done  without 
objection.  There  have  been  two  cases  of  litigation  where  the  west- 
erners have  refused  to  pay  back,  although  they  have  got  large  benefits. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Those  are  men  that  came  out  from  the  East. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  the  Yuma  and  the  Boise  project. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Are  those  appropriations  made  from  money  that 
comes  into  the  Treasury  as  taxes  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  It  is  the  money  paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury 
from  the  sale  of  public  lands. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  The  original  appropriations  necessary  to  start  the 
projects. 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  mean  irrigation  projects? 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  No;  the  parks. 

Mr.  GREGG.  For  the  parks,  naturally,  it  comes  out  of  the  United 
States  Treasury  along  with  other  appropriations.  The  Yellowstone 
Park  has  $140,000  to  $150,000  annually. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  The  tax  money  of  the  people  is  what  is  voted  to 
purchase  these  parks. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Not  that  I  know  of.  I  am  not  dwelling  on  that  line. 
I  have  studied  the  reclamation  department  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Originally? 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  were  public  lands. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Does  it  not  come  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  ? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       55 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  belong  to  all  the  people. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  That  is  what  I  want  light  on.  The  people  of  the 
East  are  the  people  that  pay  the  taxes  and  people  east  of  the  Missis- 
sippi pay  two- thirds  of  the  taxes  of  the  country.  Don't  you  think 
it  has  come  to  a  point  for  the  people  of  the  East  to  think  these 
things  over? 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  get  our  money.  We  do  not  object  to  it.  This 
is  our  land;  it  belongs  to  the  States  and  to  the  country,  and  it  is  taking 
our  taxes,  too. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  The  eastern  people  are  not  getting  along  on  this 
proposition  when  they  pay  the  bill.  It  all  comes  from  the  tax 
money,  whatever  it  is  they  do  to  raise  it. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  was  just  making  the  point  to  the  California  Con- 
gressman that  we  have  made  some  concessions.  I  never  heard  of 
active  criticism  which  turned  on  the  point  of  the  proceeds  of  public 
land  sales  going  into  the  Treasury  for  the  benefit  exclusively  of 
Reclamation  Service,  although  the  work  of  the  Reclamation  Service 
is  entirely  in  Western  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  only  got  that  six  years  ago  by  simply  scaring  up 
every  man  we  could  from  the  South  and  West. 

Mr.  GREGG.  1902. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Six  years  ago  when  we  amended  it.  We  have  had  a 
struggle  every  time. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  want  to  say  this  about  the  parks.  Yellowstone 
Park  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  we  are  so  apprehensive.  One  invasion 
begets  another.  Mr.  Smith  was  successful  in  getting  his  bill  through 
the  Senate  or  a  bill  similar  to  his,  and  right  now  there  is  before  Con- 
gress a  bill  to  turn  over  the  Yellowstone  Lake  with  its  area  of  136 
square  miles  to  the  control  of  the  State  of  Montana.  The  bill  says  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Whose  bill  is. that? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Senator  Walsh's  bill.  They  raise  the  dam  6  feet. 
You  understand  what  that  does.  That  affects  the  water  for  the 
entire  area  of  the  lake  which  is  136  square  miles.  To  do  that  the 
State  of  Montana  assumes  control  of  it  and  it  raises  and  lowers  the 
gates  as  they  think  best.  They  regulate  the  rise  and  fall  on  the 
shores,  and  as  to  their  employees,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  United 
States  Government  can  hold  jurisdiction  over  them.  So  you  see  we 
inject  an  entirely  different  proposition,  perhaps,  because  Mr.  Smith 
was  so  successful  in  getting  his  bill  through  the  Senate. 

Recently  I  have  read  in  a  magazine  published  in  Salt  Lake  City 
an  article  in  which  a  man  advocates  the  immediate  use  of  the  Sho- 
shone  and  Lewis  Lakes  as  a  reservoir,  in  which  he  admits  that  it 
will  flood  a  great  number  of  thousands  of  acres  of  land  in  the  Yellow- 
stone Park  and  that  it  will  flood  the  public  roads  for  at  least  three 
miles,  but  other  arrangements  can  be  made,  etc. 

Now,  I  was  in  the  Yellowstone  Park  and  vicinity  seven  weeks  in 
1920  and  seven  weeks  the  year  before  with  a  pack  horse  train,  going 
around  in  unusual  places  as  well  as  usual  places  and  I  have  person- 
ally seen  and  know  of  about  10  large  reservoir  sites  right  in  there 
and  if  the  people  can  get  one,  why  not  two,  and  why  not  three,  and 
so  on.  It  only  takes  three  or  four  to  absolutely  destroy  the  park. 
I  think  anybody  will  admit  that. 

In  the  Lamar  valley,  where  the  buffalo  herd  is  kept  confined  to 
the  valley,  there  is  a  wonderful  storage  possibility.  Mr.  Smith,  I 


56        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

suppose  you  were  over  there  to  see  that.  It  has  a  wonderful  storage 
which  would  make  your  mouth  water  to  see.  The  canyon's  walls 
are  close  together,  and  you  can  put  in  a  dam  of  150  to  200  feet  by 
which  you  can  back  water  up  4  or  5  miles  oil  comparatively  level 
ground.  There  is  another  one,  in  the  Pelican  Creek  Valley,  and  there 
are  several  others. 

Speaking  about  the  geysers  located  in  this  wonderland,  we  do  not 
know  just  how  they  operate.  Mr.  Haynes,  photographer  at  the  park, 
made  an  artificial  geyser  by  experimentation  by  putting  in  pipes  and 
having  a  certain  height  and  column  of  water  by  which  he  made  a 
reproduction  of  a  geyser. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  the  one  we  had  in  the  Interior  Department  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Yes,  sir.  He  found  that  by  varying  the  height  or 
size  of  the  column  or  the  outlet  and  inlet  it  stopped  flowing.  Now, 
the  geysers  are  surely  dependent  upon  the  nice  balances  of  water 
pressures  and  openings,  etc.,  and  when  you  store  water  in  there  you 
do  not  know  what  you  are  doing.  We  think  we  are  all  right,  like 
a  boy  who  cuts  into  his  drum  one-eighth  or  one-tenth  of  an  inch, 
but  we  do  not  realize  our  loss  until  after  the  damage  is  done,  when  it 
is  too  late  and  we  can  not  restore  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  are  opposed  to  establishing  any  precedent  of 
encroachment  in  the  national  parks  * 

Mr.  GREGG.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Once  a  park  always  a  park  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  And  for  that  reason  I  think  the  creation  of  a  park 
should  be  very  carefully  studied  from  the  standpoint  of  the  interests 
of  the  whole  United  States,  and  no  territory  should  be  lightly  put 
into  the  parks. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  do  not  mean,  Mr.  Gregg,  that  the  condition  of 
this  country  might  not  reach  such  a  state  100  or  200  years  hence 
when  a  modified  use  might  not  be  made  of  particular  places  in  the 
park  that  would  not  destroy  the  scenic  value  or  modify  it  to  a  little 
extent,  so  that  relative  use  could  be  made  of  the  water  where  it 
might  be  done  safely  ( 

Mr.  GREGG.  Most  certainly  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Don't  you  think  that  something  of  that  kind  might 
occur  in  the  future  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  must  realize  that  in  the  big  parks,  and  I  am  a 
great  park  enthusiast  myself,  I  feel  that  sometime  a  juncture  such 
as  this  might  happen.  The  parks  themselves  are  making  this  modi- 
fied use  right  now.  In  the  Yosemite  they  are  scarring  the  cliffs  by 
roads,  scarring  the  cliffs  even  by  pipe  lines,  putting  in  power  plants 
of  their  own  all  through,  and  I  know  right  now  of  one  where  one  of 
the  high  chiefs,  a  late  president  of  one  of  our  associations,  is  proposing 
to  put  an  elevator  up  there  on  the  cliffs  of  Glacier  Point.  In  theory, 
at  least,  it  mars  the  thought  of  solidity  in  that  great  cliff,  to  that 
extent  invading  your  ideas.  That  is  proposed  by  one  of  the  high 
chiefs  of  your  group. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  for  service  to  the  tourists. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  For  service,  but  at  the  same  time  he  recognizes  even 
the  right  of  invasion  of  a  utility  into  the  parks  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  go  into  the  parks,  which  practically  modifies  to  some  degree  the 
extreme  that  some  of  the  park  men  are  urging.  I  want  to  agree  with 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       57 

you,  and  I  am  classified  as  a  person  who  is  highly  in  favor  of  the 
parks,  but  I. might  save  that  one  clause  for  possible  emergency  uses 
in  the  way  distant  future. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  speak  broadly  on  this  subject 
and  not  try  to  haggle  over  small  details.  This  is  a  big  question.  It 
is  a  question  that  Congress  in  its  wisdom  can  handle  and  should 
handle  when  such  an  emergency  comes  up. 

I  think  I  have  covered  that  point.  If  Mr.  Smith  wants  to  bring  out 
some  facts,  I  will  be  glad  to  proceed. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  very  evident  that  the  reason  Mr.  Gregg  and  Mr. 
McFarland  and  his  associates  are  anxious  to  have  this  bill  passed  and 
the  Federal  water-power  law  amended  is  because  of  the  fact  that: they 
do  not  want  to  rely  upon  the  judgment  of  the  members  of  the  water- 
power  commission  and  the  expert  advice  which  will  be  furnished  to  it 
regarding  any  of  these  projects.  It  is  much  easier  to  influence  Con- 
gress adversely  on  legislation  that  might  be  proposed.  I  do  not 
think  that  any  one  will  deny  that  that  is  the  real  reason  for  the 
introduction  of  this  bill  and  its  advocacy  here  before  the  committee. 

Now  a  dispute  has  arisen  as  to  the  character  of  the  lands  in  the 
southwestern  corner  of  the  Yellowstone  Park  wherein  it  was  pro- 
posed to 'construct  a  reservoir  to  store  200,000  acre  feet  of  water  to 
afford  supplemental  water  supply  to  200,000  acres  of  land,  a  good 
portion  of  which  is  now  under  cultivation.  Because  of  the  short- 
age of  water  many  of  the  farmers  frequently  lose  a  portion  of  their 
crops  and  some  of  them  all  of  their  crops.  My  information  with  ref- 
erence to  the  character  of  that  land  was  based  upon  the  official  maps 
of  the  Government  such  as  we  have  here  of  Yellowstone  Park,  com- 
piled by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  and  it  is  supposed  to  be 
authentic.  It  was  based  upon  the  report  of  Mr.  Henry  Gannett,  of 
the  Geological  Survey,  who  in  1878  went  into  this  particular  section 
of  the  country  and  made  a  report  from  which  I  wish  to  quote  a  sen- 
tence : 

Falls  River  Basin  into  which  this  stream  debouches  abruptly,  the  plateau  ending 
suddenly  in  a  line  of  cliffs  facing  to  the  westward  is  a  large  valley,  part  of  which  is 
open,  while  a  part  is  covered  with  a  dense  growth  of  large  coniferae  and  the  ground  is 
cumbered  with  fallen  timber  to  such  an  extent  that  added  to  the  swampy,  springy 
nature  of  the  soil,  the  basin  is  well-nigh  impassable. 

I  also  formed  my  conclusion  in  the  matter  by  advice  from  the 
Director  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  who  in  a  letter  addressed  to  me 
on  the  18th  of  last  March  confirmed  the  statement  of  Mr.  Gannett, 
argd  also  the  official  map  and  also  based  on  his  own  observations 
because  he  went  in  there  as  the  representative  of  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment to  survey  the  possible  sites  for  reservoirs  in  which  water  could 
be  stored.  I  am  rather  surprised  that  we  have  here  before  us  a 
gentleman  who  wishes  to  repudiate  all  of  these  official  statements 
and  asks  this  committee  to  agree  with  him  that  this  particular  section 
of  the  park  is  not  as  represented  by  the  official  reports,  as  I  have 
said  many  times  before  to  the  representatives  of  these  organizations 
and  others  interested  in  the  national  parks,  that  I  would  not  advocate 
the  construction  of  any  project  in  any  national  park  which  would 
in  any  way  destroy  any  of  the  scenic  attractions  of  the  park.  I  want 
to  make  it  clear  that  I  do  not  wish  to  encourage  the  construction 
of  any  project  which  would  detract  from  the  beauties  of  the  park,  but 
this  reservoir  site  is  located  in  the  extreme  southwestern  corner  of 


58        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

the  park,  very  remote  from  roads  or  trails,  and  I  contend,  and  the 
official  reports  bear  me  out  in  my  statement,  that  that  section  of 
the  park  has  no  scenic  attractions. 

There  is  another  feature  which  it  seems  to  me  we  should  take  into 
consideration,  and  that  is  that  the  property  losses  in  eastern  Idaho 
among  those  farmers,  where  they  put  in  their  seed  and  cultivated 
their  crops  up  until  the  late  summer  days  of  July  and  August,  are 
entitled  to  some  consideration,  and  that  we  should  not  disregard 
their  rights  in  the  matter.  They  are  out  there  on  the  desert  attempt- 
ing to  build  homes  and  develop  the  agricultural  resources  of  the 
country  and  should  be  encouraged  in  their  efforts.  It  is  very  evident 
that  at  the  suggestion  of  these  organizations  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives in  Congress  have  been  deluged  with  telegrams  and  resolutions 
based  upon  the  erroneous  statements  made  by  such  gentlemen  as 
Mr.  Gregg,  and  I  mis;ht  name  others. 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  think  that  is  quite  fair  to  say  that  my  statements 
are  erroneous? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do.     I  do  not  mean  willfully  erroneous. 

Mr.  GREGG.  We  are  discussing  this  on  a  broad  basis. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  mean  that  you  willfully  misrepresent  the  facts. 

Mr.  GREEG.  That  I  was  mistaken  in  what  I  saw? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  here  an  article  appearing  in  the  Saturday 
Evening  Post  of  November  20,  1920,  written  by  William  C.  Gregg. 
At  the  time  I  read  that  I  did  not  recall  that  I  had  ever  heard  of  the 
gentleman,  but  upon  reflection  I  remembered  that  he  was  before  the 
Committee  on  Rules  when  the  Fall  River  Basin  matter  was  under 
consideration  last  May.  He  has  published  here  [holding  up  paper] 
some  wonderfully  attractive  photographs  of  some  very  beautiful 
waterfalls,  and  no  doubt  intended  to  leave  the  impression  upon  the 
readers  that  if  this  reservoir  was  constructed  these  beautiful  water- 
falls would  be  destroyed. 

Mr.  GREEG.  But  the  statement  is  not  made  that  they  would  be 
destroyed. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Xo.  You  are  shrewd  enough  not  to  make  that  state- 
ment, but  you  make  the  inference  there  by  using  a  deceptive  caption, 
and  the  photographs  show  that  is  the  intent. 

Mr.  GREGG.     Go  ahead. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Here  are  some  similar  photographs  which  appeared 
in  the  illustrated  section  of  the  metropolitan  papers  of  the  country. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  not  signed  by  me  and  I  have  not  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  caption. 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  are  your  photographs. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  admit  the  photographs. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  another  print  here  by  T.  Gilbert  Pearson, 
president  of  the  National  Association  of  Audubon  Societies  of  New 
York.  At  the  top  of  this  circular  is  a  photograph  of  Colonnade 
Falls,  Yellowstone  Park,  with  the  following  caption: 

National  parks  to  be  destroyed  unless  quick  action  is  taken — Colonnade  Falls, 
Belcher  River.  Yellowstone  Park— One  of  the  40  or  more  waterfalls,  cascades,  and  hot 
springs,  beautifying  the  territory,  designed  to  be  used  by  an  unsightly  reservoir  for 
commercial  purposes. 

According  to  the  United  States  Geological  map  Colonnade  Falls  is 
500  feet  higher  in  altitude  than  the  Falls  River  Basin. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  your  only  basis  for  making  that  statement? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        59 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  better  basis  than  that  can  be  had  than  the 
official  map  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  When  we  point  out  errors  on  the  map  it  ought  to  be 
a  basis. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  what  they  are  claiming,  Mr.  Chairman;  what 
assumption  to  claim  that  the  official  records  are  not  correct. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  am  not  assuming;  these  are  facts. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Colonnade  Basin  is  at  least  5  miles  up  the  river 
from  Falls  River  Basin,  according  to  the  official  maps,  and  it  is  500 
feet  higher  in  altitude. 

There  are  no  waterfalls  that  could  possibly  be  destroyed  by  the 
construction  of  that  reservoir,  and  no  hot  springs,  nor  cascades.  In 
this  circular  prepared  by  Mr.  Pearson  he  is  also  appealing  to  people 
to  whom  he  sends  it,  asking  them  to  contribute  money  to  a  fund,  the 
minimum  of  which  must  be  $5,000  in  order  that  he  may  print  more 
of  these  false  statements  and  circulate  them  throughout  the  country, 
and  send  them  to  Members  of  Congress  and  Senators.  I  am  told 
that  the  present  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Payne,  at  two  or  three 
social  functions  in  Washington  in  discussing  this  proposition  based 
his  assertion  that  the  waterfalls  would  be  destroyed  on  the  erroneous 
information  which  has  been  furnished  to  him  by  such  circulars  and 
literature. 

The  point  I  make  is  this,  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  to  consider  a  matter  of  this  kind  im- 
partially and  unprejudiced  when  the  people  who  are  interested  in  the 
policy  that  nothing  at  all  shall  be  touched  in  the  national  parks  are 
able  to  get  these  false  and  erroneous  statements  before  the  Congress. 
If  this  bill  is  passed  it  simply  means  this,  that  instead  of  having  three 
Cabinet  officers  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as 
part  of  his  official  family,  determining  whether  or  not  the  construc- 
tion of  a  water-power  plant  or  a  reservoir  within  the  boundaries  of  a 
national  park,  we  are  going  to  fall  back  on  to  Congress  to  determine 
the  matter;  when  because  of  these  false  representations  which  are 
being  made  in  the  public  press,  it  is  impossible  to  induce  Congress 
to  even  consider  the  proposition.  I  understand  that  there  was  an 
understanding  entered  into  with  Secretary  Payne  that  when  the 
water  bill  was  signed  the  pending  bill  to  amend  the  law  would  be 
introduced,  otherwise  I  would  certainly  oppose  it.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances I  feel  that  as  our  chairman  and  Senator  Jones  and  other 
Senators  have  given  their  promise  I  should  not  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  matter  was  never  referred  to  me  and  I  never 
made  any  promise. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Congress,  instead  of  having 
these  matters  imposed  upon  the  Representatives,  and  it  is  largely  a 
technical  matter,  should  insist  that  the  three  Cabinet  officers  com- 
posing the  Water 'Power  Commission  should  carry  out  the  provisions 
of  the  law.  If  we  permit  all  of  this  misrepresentation  to  poison  the 
minds  of  the  Members,  we  never  will  have  any  legislation  that  will 
afford  relief  to  the  farmers  such  as  I  represent  in  eastern  Idaho.  1 
think  it  will  be  very  disastrous  to  the  agricultural  interests  of  the 
country,  and  to  the  people  living  in  villages  and  towns  who  may  be 
benefited  by  water  power  development  in  national  parks,  if  we  have 
to  depend  on  Congress,  when  we  would  be  confronted  with  this  kind 
of  propaganda,  which  is  nation-wide,  and  which  makes  it  impossible 


60        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

to  secure  the  consideration  of  a  bill  for  the  utilization  of  water  in 
national  parks.  That  is  the  reason  they  favor  the  enactment  of  this 
legislation.  Prejudice,  not  reason,  should  be  the  deciding  factor. 

Mr.  GREGG.     I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  question  asked. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  simply  want  to  make  this  statement.  I  think  it  is 
assumptions  for  a  private  citizen  to  come  into  the  committee  and  in- 
sist on  our  repudiating  the  official  records  compiled  by  the  officers  of 
the  Government,  who  are  unprejudiced  and  supposed  to  do  their  duty, 
and  accept  his  opinion  instead  as  to  the  character  of  the  country 
involved. 

Mr.  GREGG.  The  last  general  proposition,  I  understand,  is  that 
you  are  blaming  us  for  wanting  to  trust  Congress  with  handling  the 
national  parks  and  that  you  are  afraid  to  have  Congress  handle  it 
and  prefer  to  have  the  commissioners  handle  it,  although  the  commis- 
sion itself,  in  the  interest  of  the  parks,  does  not  wish  to  handle  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  a  matter  that  Congress  can  not  take  time  to  con- 
sider in  its  details.  They  do  not  have  the  opportunity  to  see  these 
parks,  especially  the  remote  sections,  but  these  three  Cabinet  officers, 
sworn  officers  of  the  Government,  who  are  unprejudiced,  will  take  ac- 
tion upon  information  furnished  by  private  citizens  and  the  Govern- 
ment surveyors,  and  decide  whether  or  not  the  utilization  of  water  in 
the  parks  will  be  to  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the  country. 

The  parks  are  the  playgrounds  of  the  United  States,  but  there  were 
only  about  80,000  people  who  went  into  the  Yellowstone  Nati6nal 
Park  this  year  and  the  people  whom  I  represent  in  eastern  Idaho  who 
would  be  benefited  by  this  aggregate  nearly  30,000,  and  if  they  could 
get  this  water  to  irrigate  their  lands  and  build  up  the  country  there 
would  be  several  times  that  number.  I  saw  in  the  paper  recently  that 
a  woman's  club  over  in  Far  Rockaway,  N.  Y.,  passed  resolutions  con- 
demning the  Falls  River  Basin  project  and  at  the  same  time  raised 
$1,000  to  send  to  the  suffering  Armenian  children  in  Europe.  If  we 
wore  permitted  to  utilize  this  water  to  carry  it  to  the  farmers  in  east- 
ern Idaho  we  would  have  a  great  deal  less  suffering  among  the  children 
of  parents  out  thoro.  whose  crops  have  dried  up  because  they  can  not 
use  the  water  to  mature  them. 

Mr.  GREGG.     Are  they  suffering? 

Mr.  SMITH.     Absolutely  suffering.     I  can  show  you  photographs 
of  the  homes  of  people  on  these  lands  in  which  you  would  not  even 
put  a  garage,  patiently  waiting  in  the  hopes  that  they  may  get  the 
water  to  put  on  their  lands. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  have  a  little  evidence  that  I  hope  I  will  be  permitted 
to  give  in  on  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Mr.  GREGG.  To  answer  the  question  of  the  Congressman  from 
Idaho,  first,  there  is  the  data  we  have  before  the  Public  Lands  Com- 
mittee, where  he  made  this  statement  which  is  in  the  record : 

There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  way  of  unusual  scenery  or  other  interesting 
features  in  this  part  of  the  park — 

The  southwest  corner — 
but  the  entire  area — 

Mark  the  words,  because  it  is  important  to  get  those  words — 

but  the  entire  area  contains  only  the  ordinary  western  mountain  landscape  scenery, 
such  as  may  be  seen  along  the  lines  of  travel  for  many  miles  by  any  tourist  approaching 
the  park  from  any  direction. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT.        61 

I  hope  I  have  made  that  clear.  That  was  the  testimony  of  Con- 
gressman Smith  before  the  Public  Lands  Committee  or  in  the  report 
he  wrote.  You  wrote  that? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  only  had  reference  to  the  basin,  not  to  those 
waterfalls  and  cascades. 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  used  the  expression.  I  have  read  the  emphasis 
there.  The  entire  area,  is  what  you  said.  Had  you  been  in  that 
district  when  you  wrote  or  spoke  those  words  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  I  said  that  is  based  on  information  and  official 
reports  furnished  to  me.  But  I  have  been  in  there  since. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  protest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  was  a  very  strong 
statement  to  make  when  he  had  no  information  of  his  own.  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  his  own  information. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  had  it  from  the  officers  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  GREGG.  It  looks  like  your  own  testimony.  I  was  astonished 
to  have  you  admit  to  me  afterwards  that  you  had  not  been  in  there 
before  this  summer  and  admit  then  that  you  were  only  in  there  part 
of  one  day. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  was  in  there  one  day  and  had  opportunity  to  drive 
over  the  basin  for  four  hours. 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  had  a  team  of  horses  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GREGG.  If  you  can  get  over  there  with  a  team  of  horses  in  four 
hours,  you  must  have  had  solid  ground  under  you. 

Mr.  SMITH.  This  basin  only  covers  8,000  acres. 

Mr.  GREGG.  That  is  quite  a  lot  of  territory. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  can  get  around  8,000  acres  in  less  than  4  hours. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Mr.  Chairman,  what  we  have  found  in  that  8,000- 
acre  basin  was,  roughly  speaking,  about  4,000  acres  of  meadowland 
and  4,000  acres  of  timber.  The  meadows  are  separated  and  bor- 
dered by  timber;  one  meadow  contained  1,000  to  1,20.0  acres. 
All  meadows  are  hay  meadpws.  I  used  to  be  in  the  timber  and  saw- 
mill business  in  northern  Minnesota.  I  have  cruised  a.  great  deal  of 
timberland.  I  have  bought  and  paid  for  it  on  the  basis  of  stumpage 
standing  and  you  will  permit  me  to  say  that  I  made  an  estimate  very 
roughly  of  over  40,000,000  feet  of  standing  timber  on  this  4,000 
acres.  It  is  not  large  timber;  it  is  young,  thrifty  growing  pine  timber. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  could  you  do  with  that  timber  ?  It  is  all  small. 
It  is  not  over  a  foot  in  diameter. 

Mr.  C  REGG.  I  am  giving  you  my  observation  against  the  state- 
ments that  have  been  made  that  there  is  no  timber  in  there. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  kind  of  pine  is  it? 

Mr.  (."  REGG.  Lodgepole  pine.  I  have  got  some  statistics  on  that, 
but  I  will  not  take  up  your  time.  Now,  about  those  people  who  are 
suffering  up  there.  We  found  outside  storage,  and  it  is  my  judg- 
ment, and  I  had  an  aneroid  barometer  and  took  the  levels,  that  there 
is  a  great  deal  of  storage  outside  that  would  equal  the  inside  storage 
that  they  are  after.  I  have  the  photographs,  and  if  the  committee 
wants  to  investigate  that,  I  have  a  lot  of  information. 

The  statement  that  I  want  to  follow  up  is  the  suffering  of  these 
people  in  Idaho.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  in  my  hands  a  magazine 
called  the  New  West,  published  in  Salt  Lake  City.  This  is  the 
December,  1920,  issue.  They  had  a  man  up  on  the  Snake  River 
writing  up  this  country.  There  are  a  number  of  irrigation  articles 


62        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

in  here  which  appeal  for  an  increase  of  irrigation,  the  building 
of  dams,  etc.,  and  along  here  are  a  number  of  sidelights  that 
show  that  it  is  a  thrifty,  prosperous  community.  I  was  down  there 
also,  and  these  statements  agree  with  my  own  judgment.  Near 
Ash  ton,  which  is  25  miles  from  the  park,  dry  farming  is  used,  where 
they  can  not  irrigate.  One  of  the  erroneous  statements  here  made 
was  that  there  were  200,000  acres  that  can  be  added.  That  is  an 
inference. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  a  supplemental  supply  of  200,000. 

Mr.  f  REGG.  The  200,000  acres  there  can  not  all  be  irrigated,  be- 
cause it  is  rolling  ground.  You  must  conduct  your  water  on  a'  level 
that  is  physically  and  financially  possible.  All  land  lying  above  that 
level  is  dry  farming,  or  nothing.  Is  not  that  so  ?  There  is  no  way 
to  get  the  water  up  unless  you  pump  it  up,  and  as  that  is  rolling  ground 
they  can  not  or  will  not  pump  until  the  products  of  these  farms  will 
justify  it,  or  some  aqueduct  construction  by  which  they  can  get  the 
water  to  the  top  of  the  higher  points  of  the  farms. 

Here  is  a  report  of  J.  E.  Bates,  instructor  in  vocational  agriculture 
at  Ashton,  which  is  in  Fremont  County.  He  spoke  about  some  of 
the  high-school  boys,  and  said: 

During  the  last  year  these  Smith-Hughes  boys  have  produced  42  bushels  per  acre 
dry  land  oats — 

This  is  this  year,  1920,  that  they  produced  42  bushels  per  acre 
dry  land  oats. 

and  65  bushels  per  acre  of  oats  on  irrigated  land ;  dry  land  Marquis  wheat,  that  made 
24  bushels  per  acre;  potatoes  making  from  225  to  400  bushels  per  acre. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  in  a  different  section  of  the  country. 

Mr.  GREGG.  This  is  in  your  county,  Fremont  County,  where  your 
farmers  are  located  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  counties  up  there  are  about  the  size  of  the  State 
of  Connecticut. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Here  is  a  report  from  Drummond,  Idaho.  This  man 
has  been  sent  up  there  to  write  this  up  for  this  paper.  Drummond 
is  9  miles  from  Ashton;  that  whole  area  is  in  your  " suffering"  dis- 
trict. It  is  all  in  Idaho  and  it  is  all  in  the  Snake  River  drainage 
territory.  What  this  man  says  of  Drummond,  Idaho,  9  miles  from 
Ashton,  is  pretty  close  to  the  argument.  He  says: 

Dry  farm  wheat  is  a  feature  of  the  countryside,  and  many  farmers  have  raised  from 
30  to  60  bushels  per  acre  in  prosperous  years,  with  only  one  failure  in  20  years. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  shows  your  ignorance  of  dry  farming  in  that  coun- 
try. Dry  farming  is  successful  up  in  the  hills  and  not  down  in  the 
valley  where  it  is  proposed  to  put  this  water. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  am  just  calling  attention  to  these  reports  which  are 
not  written  for  any  other  purpose,  as  far  as  I  understand  it,  than  to 
tell  the  truth  about  those  districts.  It  was  not  expected  to  be 
brought  into  this  hearing  at  all.  The  West  has  complained  that  we 
do  not  understand  the  West,  that  the  West  itself  understands  its  own 
problems,  and  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of  force  in  that.  For  that 
reason  I  should  be  more  inclined  to  take  the  testimony  of  the  West 
as  to  some  of  these  things  and  I  protest  that  many  of  the  statements 
that  the  Congressman  has  made  or  inferred  are  not  borne  out  by  the 
facts.  Take  those  meadows  in  the  Falls  River  Basin,  I  can  show  you 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       63 

the  grass.  If  you  saw  that  picture  of  our  camp  on  that  slough  swamp 
where  I  was,  expecting  to  find  nothing  but  cat-tails  and  such  things, 
the  picture  is  evidence  of  just  what  is  on  those  8,000  acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Will  this  area  of  8,000  acres  be  flooded  by  the 
reservoirs  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  It  is  intended  to  be. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  deep  will  it  be  flooded  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  A  50-foot  dam  is  to  be  put  in,  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Would  any  of  these  falls  that  you  have  referred  to 
be  in  this  area  of  8,000  acres  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Only  one. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  does  the  flooding  of  this  area  affect  the  falls  ? 
Does  that  drown  them  out  in  any  way ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  The  Great  Belcher  River  Valley  is  a  wide,  splendid 
valley  and  on  the  north  and  west  is  the  Madison  Plateau,  which  rises 
1,000  or  1,500  leet  above  that  Belcher  River  bottom,  while  on  the 
other  side  is  the  Pitchstone  Plateau  lying  on  the  east.  In  between 
is  the  Belcher  River  canyon.  Over  the  face  of  these  plateaus  and  in 
the  Belcher  River  canyon  are  a  number  of  falls  and  cascades.  One, 
" Colonnade  Falls,"  is  right  down  near  the  mouth,  as  I  remember  it; 
we  camped  two  nights  at  the  mouth  of  the  canyon  right  in  the  swamp, 
if  you  please.  It  was  good  dry  grass  ground.  We  went  from  there 
up  to  Colonnade  Falls  one  day  and  my  remembrance  is  there  was  a 
rise  of  not  over  30  to  50  feet.  I  can  not  say  positively,  but  there  was 
no  appreciable  rise  to  us  as  we  rode  through  there  on  horseback. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  My  question  is  whether  the  reservoirs  would  drown 
out  or  flood  out  any  of  those  falls  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  The  height  of  the  dam  would  determine,  in  my  judg- 
ment, as  to  whether  the  water  would  go  to  the  foot  of  the  Colonnade 
Falls  or  whether  it  would  fall  short  a  few  hundred  feet  or  half  a  mile. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Then  you  do  not  know  whether  any  of  these  falls 
would  be  wiped  out  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  No,  I  did  not  say  that  they  would  be  destroyed,  but 
the  whole  scenic  area  would  be  destroyed  because  you  would  cut 
off  these  various  falls  from  access. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  many  of  these  falls  are  there  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  From  these  plateaus  falls  a  number  of  streams,  quite 
beautiful  falls  and  cascades. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  About  how  many  of  them  are  there? 

Mr.  GREGG.  In  that  immediate  circle? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Including  two  in  the  canyon  there  are  five  capital 
pieces  of  scenery.  I  say  capital.  They  are  worth  a  whole  lot  to  any 
community  that  has  them.  As  I  have  said,  if  they  were  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  or  Indiana  they  would  be  advertised. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  would  not  be  affected  by  the  water  and  would 
not  be  drowned  out  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  do  not  say  so  and  have  not  claimed  so  and  it  is  not 
so.  But  the  access  to  them  from  the  ordinary  approach  through 
this  valley  would  be  destroyed.  There  is  one  more  point.  This  valley 
is  the  finest  valley  of  the  Yellowstone  National  rark.  It  was  not 
known  before  particularly. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  do  not  claim  to  have  discovered  this  valley? 


64        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  GREGG.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  said  it  was  not  known  before. 

Mr.  GREGG.  You  were  in  there  this  summer  before  I  was.  But 
the  question  is  as  to  the  swampy  character  of  these  bottoms.  You 
can  not  get  away  from  that  grass.  That  grass  has  been  there  a  long 
time  and  is  what  we  call  "red  top"  and  there  are  broad  stretches  of 
it.  I  will  admit  that  meadows  in  the  spring  are  sometimes  soft. 
You  can  go  out  in  any  of  our  States  and  the  farmers  will  tell  you  in 
the  springtime  not  to  go  on  the  meadows  because  you  will  mire 
down.  But  during  the  summer  season,  July  and  August,  and  the 
first  half  of  September,  I  firmly  believe  that  those  bottoms  are  quite 
perfect  for  campers  or  tourists'  purposes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  I  recall  it,  there  was  the  same  talk  before  the 
Public  Lands  Committee  and  the  Rules  Committee  about  the  possi- 
bility of  cutting  out  a  portion  of  this  park  for  this  purpose.  Are 
your  associations  just  as  much  opposed  to  it  as  you  would  be  to 
having  Mr.  Smith's  bill  passed  infringing  upon  the  park  as  it  is  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Yes;  for  various  reasons.  First,  because  we  have  got 
outside  storage.  That  would  dispose  of  the  \vhole  question. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  do  not  think  this  land  could  be  taken  out  of  the 
park  without  serious  injury  to  the  park? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Take  the  most  beautiful  valley  in  the  park  and  the 
most  attractive  because  it  is  surrounded  by  canyons  and  streams  and 
falls  and  patches  of  timber,  making  an  ideal  camping  place. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  are  thousands  of  places  like  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Ten  thousand. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Throughout  the  west  that  could  be  put  into  a  park 
just  as  nice  as  that. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Next  to  the  reservoir  site  on  the  east  are  also  several 
falls  and  cascades.  If  you  put  in  a  dam  and  flood  the  whole  bottom, 
you  back  up  the  water  to  most  of  these  features,  cutting  them  off 
from  access.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  spoil  the  use  of  that  part  of  the 
park.  There  would  be  only  one  access — from  the  rear. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  have  devoted  enough  time  to  this  fea- 
ture of  it.  There  are  so  many  witnesses  here  from  out  of  town. 
There  will  be  no  other  chance  for  a  hearing  as  the  Interstate  Commit- 
tee will  meet  to-morrow. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  want  to  say  that  we  found  that  one  of  the  streams, 
was  entirely  wrong  on  the  topographied  map  and  it  does  not  show 
the  Bechler  River  where  it  is  supposed  to  join  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  this  map  on  the  Government  publication 
is  not  absolutely  correct  because  it  was  surveyed  in  1883  or  1885  and 
there  is  a  marginal  reference  of  a  partial  revision  in  1910  by  A.  T. 
Davis.  It  is  possible  that  might  be  of  such  size  as  that  there  would 
be  topographical  errors  in  it. 

Mr.  GREGG.   We  found  it  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.   There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  spoke  about  this  beautiful  valley  as  very  attrac- 
tive and  a  place  in  which  to  camp.  Do  you  think  the  tourist  would 
leave  the  shaded  portions  of  the  park  and  come  down  into  this  mos- 
quito infested  section  which  up  to  the  1st  of  July  or  August  is  a 
swamp  ?  Did  the  mosquitoes  bother  you  any  on  the  9th  of  August  1 

Mr.  GREGG.  The  mosquitoes  are  bad  in  the  park  at  times  every- 
where. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       65 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  were  not  bad  in  the  park  proper  on  the  9th  of 
August  because  we  went  into  the  park  and  after  we  left  the  Falls 
River  Basin,  found  no  mosquitoes;  but  in  the  Falls  River  Basin  on 
the  7th  of  August  the  mosquitoes  bit  me  so  badly  that  the  lumps  on 
my  neck  as  a  result  did  not  disappear  for  several  weeks  after  the  trip. 

Mr.  GREGG.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  same  was  true  of  the  other  men.  I  suppose  you 
think  that  it  is  a  delightful  place  in  which  to  camp  ? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Do  you  know  whether  the  plans  for  the  benefit  of 
the  park  include  this  rather  remote  section  which  you  say  is  scenic 
and  is  one  of  the  major  attractions  which  would  be  taken  in  in  view- 
ing the  park  or  is  it  an  isolated  place  which  will  never  be  in  current 
travel  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  There  are  one-way  rules  on  the  roads  of  the  park 
because  of  travel  congestion.  They  have  not  anywhere  near  ade- 
quate roads  enough  and  they  have  not  enough  camp  places.  This  is 
only  20  miles —  right  into  the  heart  of  it — only  20  miles  from  the  Old 
Faithful  (  eyser. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Would  you  and  your  associates  be  interested  in  a  prop- 
osition for  these  farmers  who  are  anxious  to  get  this  water  to  build 
this  dam  wide  enough,  covering  a  distance  of  2  miles,  so  that  you 
could  connect  up  with  a  road  system  leading  up  to  the  Old  Faithful 
Geyser  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Outside  of  the  park  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No. 

Mr.  GREGG.  We  would  be  interested  in  anything  outside  of  the 
park. 

Mr.  SMITH.  To  build  a  dam  wide  enough,  like  Lake  Roosevelt  Dam, 
and  make  it  part  of  a  national  road  system  to  get  into  the  Yellow- 
stone National  Park  ? 

Mr.  (  REGG.  I  think  I  have  made  myself  clear  when  I  say  we  stand 
for  no  invasion  of  the  parks.  I  do  not  speak  for  the  policy  outside 
of  the  parks. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Did  you  say  the  place  where  you  camped  was  within 
20  miles  of  Old  Faithful  ? 

Mr.  GREGG.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  the  Falls  River  Basin  ? 

Mr.  'REGG.  It  should  be  called  the  Bechler  River  Basin.  The 
Falls  River  is  really  entirely  out  of  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  pictures  show  where  you  camped. 

Mr.  GREGG.  Yes,  within  20  miles  of  Old  Faithful.  Roughly  speak- 
ing, that  is  the  distance  of  it;  yes. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.   CHARLES  W.  KELLOGG,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Kellogg,  will  you  please  state  your  full  name, 
whom  you  represent,  and  your  occupation? 

Mr.  KELLOG.  I  represent  Stone  &  Webster  (Inc.),  of  Boston,  Mass. 
I  am  here,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  only  on 
bill  15126,  on  the  question  of  additional  personnel  for  the  Water 
Power  Commission.  The  matter  came  to  our  attention  in  connection 
with  a  small  project  on  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  N.  Y.,  for  which 

29414—21 5 


66        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

we  are  asking  a  permit  from  the  Water  Power  Commission,  and  in 
response  to  which  application  we  learned  it  was  likely  there  would 
be  a  considerable  delay  in  the  issuance  of  a  permit,  and  subsequently 
a  license,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  the  right  men  to  pass 
on  so  many  applications  as  were  pending  before  the  commission  at 
the  present  time.  It  was  for  that  reason  I  thought  it  wise  to  come 
down  here  and  present  our  views  to  your  committee  on  the  subject. 
Like  the  preceding  witness,  there  is  very  little  that  I  can  add  so  far 
as  information  goes  to  what  the  three  secretaries  said  this  morning, 
but  I  thought,  perhaps,  I  could. add  just  a  word  from  the  point  of 
view  of  a  member  of  an  engineering  and  constructing  organization. 

Our  organization  has  been  constructing  water  powers  for  some- 
thing over  20  years  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  We  have  con- 
structed something  over  half  a  million  horsepower  in  various  parts  of 
the  United  States.  .1  know  our  feeling  would  be,  if  we  had  charge  of 
of  any  such  proposition  as  the  Water  Power  Commission  has,  with 
12,000,000  horsepower  applied  for  in  the  first  few  months  of  the  com- 
mission's operation,  that  a  very  large  and  competent  force  would  be 
necessar}7  to  handle  that  work  expeditiously;  a  work  so  large  that  it 
would  be  probably  almost  impossible  to  secure  sufficient  men  in  num- 
bers and  in  technical  knowledge  from  the  other  departments.  We 
therefore  think  that  such  a  measure  as  is  proposed  in  this  bill  in 
order  to  obtain  the  necessary  force  is  a  proper  one. 

There  is  only  one  other  point  I  think  it  proper  to  make  in  that 
connection,  raised  by  the  chairman  this  morning,  and  that  is  the 
question  of  haste,  or,  rather,  of  rushing  these  applications  through  as 
speedily  as  possible.  I  am  sure  that  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  or 
anyone  else  interested  in  water-power  development,  there  is  no  desire 
to  have  such  haste  on  the  part  of  the  Government  that  the  work 
might  be  done  carelessly  or  that  the  public  interest  might  not  be 
wholly  conserved.  I  think  you  gentlemen  all  realize,  and  everyone 
in  the  country  perhaps  also  realizes — at  least  everyone  who  has 
tnought  about  water-power  development — what  it  means  to  the 
country  to  have  our  latent  water  power  developed  with  such  expedi- 
tion as  a  thoroughly  competent  and  adequate  force  may  bring  about. 
And  I  think,  considering  the  enormous  amount  of  detail  involved  and 
the  importance  of  the  projects  in  conserving  fuel^  it  is  real  economy 
in  the  end  to  expedite  matters  and  begin  getting  results. 

In  other  words,  if  an  appropriation  at  this  time  could  cut  down  to 
0:13  or  one  and  a  half  years  the  work  that  otherwise  might  require 
five  years,  the  increase  in  conservation  of  coal  which  would  result 
from  that  more  rapid  development  of  water  power  would  be  very 
considerable.  Of  course,  it  is  a  purely  business  proposition.  My 
only  purpose  in  appearing  here  to-day  is  to  say  that  it  seems  to  us  as 
a  purely  practical  matter  that  this  commission  ought  to  have  an 
appropriation  for  quite  a  considerable  staff  of  its  own,  to  be  furnished 
in  the  immediate  future,  to  handle  this  important  branch  of  the  public 
business.  Iliat  is  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  familiar,  of  course,  with  this  water-power  bill  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  I  have  read  it  several  times. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  familiar  with  this  provision  that  practically 
all  the  men  shall  be  furnished  by  three  of  the  present  Government 
departments,  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture,  and  that  the  work  shall 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       67 

be  performed  by  their  engineering,  technical,  clerical,  and  other  per- 
sonnel, except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  by  law  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  are  three  full  departments  turned  over  to  the 
use  of  the  commission.  There  is  no  limit  as  to  how  they  may  draw 
on  these  several  departments  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  Without  knowing  anything  about  the  business  of 
those  departments,  which  I  do  not  pretend  to  know,  might  it  not  be 
a  fact  that  those  departments  are  engaged  in  various  branches  of 
Government  activities  requiring  the  services  of  the  men  they  now 
havo? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Very  true;  but  all  three  of  these  departments  have 
engineers,  technical  experts,  and  other  personnel  who  have  been  en- 
gaged in  water  power  work;  the  Agriculture  Department,  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior,  and  the  War  Department.  They  have  been  in- 
vestigating and  handling  this  subject.  What  I  can  not  understand  is, 
why  you,  representing  Stone  &  Webster,  are  urging  a  new  organiza- 
tion, instead  of  taking  men  from  the  departments  you  now  have. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  Do  not  misunderstand  me— 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing) .  I  do  not  get  your  viewpoint  at  all. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  I  want  to  try  to  make  that  clear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  wish  you  would. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  So  far  as  Stone  &  Webster  are  concerned,  I  started 
out  by  explaining  that  the  only  water  power  we  are  interested  in  in 
connection  with  this  bill  at  the  present  time  is  a  very  small  one  for 
one  of  our  clients.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  us  just 
when  that  application  is  granted.  But  as  I  recall  Secretary  Baker's 
statement  this  morning  to  your  committee,  it  was  that  the  volume 
of  applications  which  have  come  in  already  to  the  Water  Power 
Commission  represent  about  12,000,000  horsepower,  or  about  six 
times  the  volume  that  had  come  in  to  all  of  the  three  department  in- 
volved in  their  entire  history.  As  I  understand  the  situation  it  is 
brand  new  and  a  very  large  development  of  activities  of  the  Federal 
Government — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Well,  but  I  do  not  understand — 

Mr.  KELLOGG  (continuing).  Just  to  continue  the  thought,  if  you 
please:  I  should  imagine  that  unless  the  existing  departments  are 
very  much  overmanned  and  very  inefficiently  managed — and  I  think 
it  improper  to  assume  that  they  are  overmanned — it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  them  to  spare  a  sufficiently  large  number  of  men  from  their 
present  orgainzations  to  handle  this  work.  And  I  understand  that 
Secretary  Baker  so  stated  to  your  committee  this  morning. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Department  of  Agriculture  has  been  doing  that 
work  for  the  last  16  years. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  Not,  however,  on  any  such  scope,  have  they? 

Mr.  RAKER.  To  a  general  extent. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  scope  of  the  work  now  that  we 
ought  to  consider. 

Mr.  RAKER.  When  have  power  plants  scattered  all  over  the  coun- 
try that  they  have  handled,  developments  that  they  have  investigated, 
and  from  my  viewpoint  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  and  the  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  and  the  Department  of  War  have  been  han- 
dling the  matter.  What  have  become  of  those  people  that  they  have 


68        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

been  using  in  this  work?  And  if  there  is  such  an  urgent  demand 
why  hasn't  this  commission  taken  those  men  out  of  those  depart- 
ments and  then  put  the  matter  up  to  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions to  supply  the  men  that  might  be  needed  in  addition  ?  And  why 
have  not  those  three  departments  put  up  to  the  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations the  matter  of  supplying  men  in  place  of  those  that  have 
been  drawn  from  their  departments  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  As  to  that  particular  question,  of  course,  I  can  not 
answer.  I  am  simply  thinking  of  the  general  condition  which  now 
presents  itself  to  the  Water  Power  Commission  and  trying  to  make 
clear  how  large  a  proposition  it  is. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  true.  But  you  have  come  before  the  com- 
mittee asking  an  amendment  of  the  law  to  make  an  entirely  new 
organization ;  to  take"  from  the  bill  provisions  which  the  committee, 
after  long  and  mature  consideration,  put  in  in  the  hope  of  getting 
results  in  an  economical  way  and  utilize  the  ability  and  experience 
we  had  in  these  branches  of  the  public  service.  Now,  after  all  the 
consideration  this  committee  has  given  the  matter  and  the  effort  it 
has  made,  all  of  a  sudden  there  seems  to  be  a  change  of  sentiment 
to  put  aside  all  those  men  of  experience  and  to  get  a  new  organiza- 
tion, and  just  for  what  purpose  I  can  not  understand. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  Will  you  pardon  an  interruption  for  a  moment, 
Juds;e  Raker? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  will. 

Mr.  \VINSLOW.  Mr.  Kellogg,  I  would  like  to  ask  on  that  point  is  it 
your  purpose  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that 
if  we  are  to  have  any  such  organization  as  the  one  proposed  it  is 
your  advice  and  suggestion  that  we  look  at  the  necessities'  of  the 
situation,  look  the  situation  squarely  in  the  face,  and  make  an 
adequate  appropriation  for  them  to  do  the  work  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  That  is  exactly  my  idea. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  And  I  think  that  is  perfectly  clear.  Judge  Raker, 
I  think  the  witness  is  giving  the  benefit  of  his  judgment  in  an  attempt 
to  warn  us  of  conditions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  I  want  to  call  the  committee's  attention 
and  the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  have  already  done 
all  that,  and  have  been  doing  that  for  15  years  or  longer.  I  saw 
enormous  electric  plants  this  summer,  and  saw  one  opened  up  by  the 
Forestry  Service  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  Judge  Raker,  it  looks  to  me  a  good  deal  like  the 
war  measures  that  we  had  up  at  one  time— 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Why  can  not  we  get  the  services  of  the 
men  already  there  ? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  is  merely  a  supplemental  proposition,  as  I  under- 
stand. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know.  I  am  reading  the  statutes.  I  do  not  want 
to  take  the  time  of  the  committee  but  want  to  get  fully  before  the 
committee  that  it  is  an  entire  change  in  principle.  Here  we  started 
in  hoping  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  three  departments  mentioned,  with 
their  technical  men  and  with  their  experience,  and  now  we  want  to 
cast  them  all  aside  and  create  a  new  personnel  on  this  water-power 
development,  on  which  some  or  all  of  these  departments  have  been 
engaged  for  the  last  15  years,  and  made  a  success  of  it  as  far  as  we 
have  gone. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       69 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  would  have  to  get  that  from  some 
other  witness,  perhaps. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Perhaps  so.  But  I  wanted  to  know  what  prompted, 
the  witness  to  be  here  urging  such  an  amendment. 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  I  will  try  to  make  that  plain.  It  seems  to  me  this 
is  a  good  deal  like  the  war  emergency.  This  water-power  develop- 
ment has  been  hanging  fire  for  a  decade  in  order  to  have  the  right 
bill  agreed  upon.  During  all  that  time  the  development  of  water 
power  on  public  lands  and  on  navigable  streams  controlled  by  the 
Federal  Government  has  been  almost  nil,  and  my  judgment  would 
be,  or  my  personal  opinion  is,  that  the  reason  for  this  great  rush  of 
applications  at  the  very  beginning  under  the  new  legislation  is  because 
there  has  been  a  tremendous  lack  of  development  for  a  decade  past. 
And,  furthermore,  that  this  legislation  furnished  a  method  of  getting 
rid  of  the  existing  power  shortage,  so  that  various  people  interested 
rushed  in  to  act  under  the  law. 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  simply  a  practical  business  proposition,  that 
it  has  created  an  emergency  in  the  way  of  Federal  service  required 
which  the  existing  departments  (unless,  as  I  said  before,  they  are 
very  much  overmanned,  which  all  deny)  are  incapable  of  handling, 
or  at  least  are  not  manned  to  handle  in  an  expeditious  way.  And 
this  matter  must  be  handled  expeditiously  unless  a  great  deal  of  loss 
n  waste  of  resources  is  to  continue. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Anything  more  ? 

Mr.  KELLOGG.  I  believe  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  next  hear  Mr.  Walter  L.  Scott  for  a  few 
moments.  [After  a  pause.]  He  seems  to  he  absent.  We  will  next 
hear  Mr.  E.  Elmer  Smith. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  ELMER  SMITH,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
S.  MORGAN  SMITH  CO.,  YORK,  PA. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Please  give  to  the  reporter  your  name,  business, 
and  residence. 

Mr.  SMITH.  My  name  is  E.  Elmer  Smith,  president  of  the  S.  Mor- 
gan Smith  Co.,  York,  Pa.,  and  I  am  a  member  of  a  number  of  water- 
power  organizations  throughout  the  country. 

I  just  wanted  to  speak  a  few  words  in  reference  to  bill  15126,  prac- 
tically covering  the  same  ground  that  Mr.  Kellogg  went  over.  We, 
as  manufacturers  of  turbine  water  wheels  and  hydraulic  machinery, 
have  been  doing  practically  nothing  in  the  way  of  building  water 
wheels  for  development  purposes  on  the  public  domain,  and  simply 
for  the  reason  that  there  has  been  nothing  of  that  kind  going  on  for 
the  last  10  years.  When  the  water-power  bill  was  passed,  I  think  in 
1910,  we  all  expected  great  development,  but  everything  was  stopped 
on  account  of  certain  conditions  that  developed  in  the  bill.  When 
this  new  bill  was  presented  we,  of  course,  looked  for  a  very  active  line 
of  work.  And  now,  as  I  understand  and  as  it  appears  to  me,  the 
applications  for  power  are  so  numerous,  covering  su</h  a  tremendous 
ground  of  development,  in  all  parts  of  the  country"  and  especially  in 
the  west,  that  the  progress  of  the  work  is  going  to  be  held  up  unless 
some  adequate  provision  is  made  for  a  suitable  engineering  staff  of 
men  competent  to  assist  the  commission  in  expediting  this  work. 


70        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

I  was  very  much  impressed  with,  what  the  three  Secretaries  said 
this  morning  in  reference  to  this  matter;  and  it  seems  to  me;  in  fact  I 
am  convinced  more  than  ever,  that  this  bill  ought  to  receive  very 
favorable  consideration  at  the  hands  of  this  committee.  I  say  that 
because  of  the  fact  that  in  my  opinion,  from  information  I  have  re- 
ceived, pretty  generally  the  men  employed  in  these  departments  are 
hardly  competent  to  handle  this  broad  proposition.  This  develop- 
ment of  hydraulic  power  is  something  more  or  less  unusual,  and  I 
might  say  that  it  is  a  business  in  itself.  Men  have  to  be  educated  in 
this  particular  line  of  work,  and  they  are  not  very  numerous.  Good 
men  are  hard  to  get ;  and  I  understand,  from  the  salaries  that  men  are 
being  paid  in  the  different  departments,  you  can  not  get  the  neces- 
sary talent  as  you  have  not  there  the  talent.  That  is  a  pretty  broad 
statement  to  make,  I  admit,  but  I  think  there  is  a  good  deal  of  truth 
in  it,  and  I  believe  that  you  will  find  it  pretty  generally  true  if  you 
will  investigate  the  situation. 

I  know  that  I  have  employed  engineers,  paying  them  anywhere 
from  $10,000  to  $15,000  a  year,  in  order  to  get  the  kind  of  service 
necessary  to  make  reports  on  such  development.  It  takes  time  to 
make  them,  and  they  must  be  very  accurately  made  to  be  of  any 
benefit,  in  order  to  take  no  chances  on  them.  Development  of  water 
power  is  a  business  that  involves  many  millions  of  dollars,  at  least  in 
a  development  of  an}r  magnitude.  And  the  work  calls,  in  my  opinion, 
for  men  of  the  highest  talent.  I  am  pretty  sure  that  you  have  not 
got  that  talent  in  the  different  departments  now.  Therefore  I  feel 
that  this  bill  ought  to  receive  very  favorable  consideration.  I  think 
the  business  warrants  a  competent  engineering  department  of  its  own, 
men  that  you  can  draw  from  at  all  times,  when  you  want  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Any  questions  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  about  the  engineers  in  the  Reclamation  Service  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  have  got  good  engineers  in  the  Reclamation 
Service,  but  I  understand  they  are  not  numerous  enough  to  handle 
this  proposition  on  the  basis  that  is  being  presented  to  this  commission. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  matter  with  the  engineers  who  have 
been  handling  this  subject  for  the  last  15  years  in  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  and  who  have  demonstrated  their  work?  There  are 
to-day  going  plants  based  upon  permits  which  were  obtained  under 
the  Forestry  Service  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Outside  of  the  Reclamation  Service  I  question  whether 
there  are  many  men  available  for  this  particular  line  of  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  really,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  your  theory  is  that 
you  want  to  get  new  men  in  this  commission  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  it  will  be  a  profitable  investment  to  put  com- 
petent men,  and  plenty  of  them,  in  back  of  this  thing,  in  order  to  get 
it  moving  in  a  business-like  way. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  would  be  a  fair  salary  to  pay  such  a  man  as 
you  have  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  know  that  you  will  have  to  pay  as  much  as — well^ 
for  a  good  man  you  will  have  to  pay  as  much  as  $10,000. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  many  $10,000  men  will  be  needed? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  depends  upon  the  projects  presented.  I  under- 
stand that  there  are  100  or  more  of  them  before  the  commission. 
Of  course  they  are  not  all  active.  I  judge,  from  the  applications 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       71 

that  have  been  made,  there  will  be  a  good  many  of  them  that  will 
require  men  of  extraordinary  talent.  Of  course,  you  do  not  have  to 
have  every  man  of  $10,000  or  $15,000  capacity.  You  can  have 
subordinates  and  they  can  report  to  him  and  can  act  under  his 
direction;  but  when  it  comes  to  the  vital  point  of  making  decisions 
and  making  investigations,  then  you  must  have  a  man  who  has  had 
experience  and  possesses  the  talent  and  who  can  give  you  the  informa- 
tion that  you  can  rely  on. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  would  be  the  scope  of  this  man's  duties  that 
you  have  in  mind;  what  would  he  have  to  do? 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  would  go  out  and  look  over  these  propositions  and 
pass  upon  the  plans,  and  the  general  project  as  it  may  be  presented 
to  him.  No  ordinary  man  can  do  that.  He  must  be  a  man  not  only 
of  pretty  high  ability,  but  of  experience. 

Mr.  RAKER.  To  get  back  to  the  first  proposition,  you  said  that 
up  to  1912,  when  that  other  bill  was  passed,  or,  rather,  after  that 
time  37ou  thought  development  was  going  to  be  had  and  would  have 
been  had  except  for  one  provision;  what  was  that  provision? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  provision  that  the  financial  people  objected  to. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  was  it  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Giving  the  Government  the  right  to  confiscate  property 
without  paying  the  value  thereof. 

Mr:  RAKER.  It  was  a  revocable  permit. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so,  but  I  can  not  recall  it  right  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  was  it,  the  revocable  feature  of  the  permit,  by 
which  the  Secretary  could  withdraw  the  permit  if  he  saw  nt  so  to  dp. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  the  principal  objection  to  the  bill 
I  think. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Was  there  anything  outside  of  that? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think,  not,  particularly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  that  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture  and  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  ha,d  the  right  to  revoke  permits,  and  that  was  one  of  the 
things  they  wanted  to  get  rid  of.  They  wanted  an  everlasting  con- 
cession and  did  not  get  it,  and  then  some  people  went  ahead  and 
some  did  not. 

Mr.  Smith,  just  where  in  California  are  plants  held  up  by  this 
situation  to  which  you  refer? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  know  of  any  in  California.  I  think  in  Cali- 
fornia a  good  many  developments  are  not  on  navigable  streams. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  talking  about  on  public  lands. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  work  is  going  along  very  speedily  out  there,  but 
there  are  a  lot  in  the  East  on  different  rivers  which  are  not  going 
ahead. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  folks  would  not  rely  on  the  report  of  an  engineer 
of  the  Government  anyhow.  You  make  your  application  to  the 
Water  Power  Commission,  and  the  matter  goes  over  to  the  Secretary 
and  he  passes  upon  it,  and  then  you,  through  your  engineers,  would 
determine  whether  or  not  you  could  do  the  work  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Irrespective  of  what  the  Government's  engineer  said, 
your  organization  would  rely  upon  your  own  high-class,  highly  paid 
engineers  ? 


72        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  RAKER*.  So  I  do  not  get  the  point  that  you  want  to  get  a  new 
commission  and  take  these  men  who  have  had  experience  in  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  and  the  Department  of  the  Interior 
away  from  the  work,  cast  them  out,  and  put  new  men  in  their  places. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  have  men  in  those  departments  who  are  com- 
petent to  pass  on  these  different  propositions  speedily,  that  is  all 
right.  But,  as  I  understand  the  situation,  these  different  departments 
have  not  got  the  men;  in  fact,  good  men  are  very  hard  to  get. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  those  departments  now  can  not  get  them,  how  is 
the  Water  Power  Commission  going  to  get  them  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  know.  Probably  they  do  not  pay  money 
enough.  They  are  obtained  in  this  line  of  work  by  engineering  cor- 
porations engaged  in  water  power  development.  The  companies 
who  are  engaged  in  building  this  kind  of  work  employ  highly  com- 
petent men.  They  can  not  afford,  to  employ  any  other  kind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  For  instance,  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  and  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  have  high-class  engineers  engaged  in  the 
same  line  of  work,  and  they  are  among  the  highest  class  of  men  in 
the  United  States.  You  would  not  pay  a  man  a  higher  salary  be- 
cause he  was  working  for  the  Water  Power  Commission,  would  you  ? 
If  these  departments  can  not  get  the  men,  now  how  are  you  going 
to  get  them  under  the  Water  Power  Commission  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  a  question  of  whether  you  can  get  such  men  in 
the  departments  at  the  salaries  you  are  paying,  I  mean  men  necessary 
for  this  class  of  work.  It  is  a  very  valuable  work,  and  a  work  from 
which  the  Government  expects  to  realize  very  largely,  and  a  work 
absolutely  essential  to-  the  country. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Government  is  not  going  to  realize  from  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  Government  is  going  to  get  a  rental  for  the  power 
developed.  It  is  to  the  Government's  interest  that  developments 
should  be  successful. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  and  I  will  not  take  up 
much  more  of  your  time.  If  a  man  has  been  competent  and  capable 
to  pass  upon  this  water  power  development  on  the  great  public 
domain,  that  within  the  natural  forests,  and  has  made  a  success, 
what  difference  is  there  in  his  passing  upon  these  applications  and 
bringing  to  fruition  the  powers  that  have  been  granted  in  the  past, 
how  would  there  be  any  difference  under  the  proposed  law  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  have  men  who  are  competent,  if  you  have  men 
who  have  passed  on  these  different  propositions,  and  they  have  been 
successful,  doubtless  so  far  as  they  could  fill  the  need  they  would  be 
all  right  to  do  this  work.  But  you  haven't  such  men  in  sufficient 
numbers  to  meet  the  demands  that  are  suddenly  put  upon  the  Water 
Power  Commission.  As  long  as  you  have  competency  that  is  all 
you  need.  But  as  I  gathered  this  morning  from  the  statements  of 
the  three  Secretaries,  these  men  are  not  available.  The  three  Sec- 
retaries sat  right  at  this  table  and  stated  that  men  are  not  available, 
that  they  do  not  have  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  they  put  that  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not 
have  the  money. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  rather  inferred  that  there  were  other  reasons. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  a  man  was  competent  to  do  the  work  under  the 
law  as  it  stood  before,  which  I  take  it  is  a  fact,  the  law  relative  to 


PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       73 

hydroelectric  development  on  the  public  domain,  or  in  the  natural 
forests,  is  there  anything  peculiar  or  different  in  this  bill  than  existed 
before  that  would  take  care  of  this  situation  in  a  better  way  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  recall  but  one  or  two  developments  that  the 
Government  has  made  of  any  particular  magnitude;  and  even  then 
there  was  just  one  going  on  at  a  time,  not  requiring  very  many 
men.  There  are  applications  before  the  Water  Power  Commission 
that  aggregate  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars;  how  are  you  going  to 
pass  on  them  with  any  ordinary  force  with  the  speed  that  they  require  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Anything  more?  [After  a  pause.]  Then  we  will 
hear  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  of  Mr.  Mather. 

STATEMENT   OF  MR.   STEPHEN  T.   MATHER,   DIRECTOR,   NA- 
TIONAL PARK  SERVICE— Resumed, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mather,  Mr.  Sinnott,  of  the  committee, 
wishes  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  In  view  of  Mr.  Rogers's  bill,  No.  14.760,  are  there 
any  pending  homestead  or  land  applications  in  any  of  the  national 
parks ? 

Mr.  MATHER.  No;  they  would  not  be  considered,  no  new  applica- 
tions. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  All  right. 

Mr.  MATHER.  Do  you  mean,  are  there  any  pending  that  were 
started  previously  to  the  creation  of  the  park? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes.  The  reason  I  asked  that  question  is  that  Mr. 
Rogers  in  his  bill  takes  out  from  under  the  operation  of  the  bill  the 
natural  parks,  and  as  I  recall  the  latter  part  of  the  water-power  bill 
it  preserves  a  certain  right  in  homestead  entries  on  water-power 
sites. 

Mr.  MATHER.  I  do  not  think  that  would  be  involved  in  this  propo- 
sition, but  I  would  not  like  to  answer  positively  without  consulting 
my  legal  assistant  on  that. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  wondered  whether  in  any  newly-created  parks 
there  are  any  uncompleted  homestead  operations.  If  so  they  would 
be  excluded  by  Mr.  Rogers's  bill. 

Mr.  MATHER.  The  only  thing  I  can  think  of  is  in  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tain Park,  where  some  applications  are  being  completed  under  the 
timber  and  stone  act.  In  that  case  decision  has  been  made  in  favor 
of  the  entryman,  and  the  case  will  be  complete  in  a  very  few  weeks. 
Outside  Nof  that  I  think  there  is  no  property  in  addition. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  All  right. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  0.  C.  MERRILL,  EXECUTIVE  SECRETARY 
FEDERAL  POWER  COMMISSION,   WASHINGTON,     D.     C. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Merrill,  please  give  your  name,  state  your 
position  and  residence,  and  so  on  to  the  reporter. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  O.  C.  Merrill,  executive  secretary  Federal  Power 
Commission,  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  make  your  statement. 


74       PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Mr  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
judge,  largely  from  conversation  that  I  have  had  with  various  Mem- 
bers of  the  Congress,  that  there  is  still  considerable  misunderstanding 
concerning  the  situation  that  exists  with  respect  to  the  Federal  Power 
Commission.  The  three  departments,  Agriculture,  Interior,  and  War, 
handled  water  powers  on  the  national  forests,  on  the  public  lands, 
and  on  the  navigable  rivers  for  the  20  years  preceding  the  passage  of 
the  Federal  water  power  act.  In  that  time  they  had  applications 
before  them  for  approximately  2,500,000  horsepower.  In  six  months 
the  Federal  Power  Commission  has  received  applications  for  12,500,- 
000  horsepower,  or  five  times  as  much  as  the  three  departments 
received  in  the  previous  20  years. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  mean  applications  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes.  As  measured  by  the  amount  of  horsepower 
represented  by  the  applications  before  them.  If  we  were  to  proceed 
in  the  future  at  the  same  rate  of  progress  as  in  the  past,  and  with  no 
more  personnel  than  was  had  in  the  past,  we  would  have  100  years' 
work  ahead  of  us,  even  if  we  had  nothing  more  to  do  with  respect  to 
each  application  than  the  departments  have  had  to  do  in  the  past. 

Let  me  speak  for  a  moment  on  what  12,500,000  horsepower  means: 
It  means  from  40  to  50  per  cent  more  than  the  total  water  horse- 
power which  we  have  developed  in  the  United  States  up  to  date. 
It  means  an  amount  equal  to  the  aggregate  water  power,  steam  power, 
and  gas  power  installed  in  central  electric  stations — both  municipal 
and  private — in  the  United  States  up  to  the  time  of  the  census  report 
of  1917.  It  means  75  per  cent  of  the  developed  water  power  of  the 
world.  It  is  greater  in  amount  than  the  potential  resources  of  any 
European  nation.  Not  only  do  we  have  before  us  this  great  volume 
of  work,  but  the  new  law  puts  duties  on  the  commission  that  were 
never  placed  upon  the  individual  departments. 

The  Department  of  Agriculture  received  applications  under  the 
act  of  1901.  They  examined  them  and  checked  them  up  to  see  that 
they  contained  proper  descriptions  of  the  public  lands.  Provisions 
were  made  concerning  the  time  in  which  the  work  was  to  be  com- 
menced and  completed,  an  annual  rental  charge  was  prescribed,  and 
then  a  permit  was  issued.  The  Interior  Department  did  likewise. 
The  War  Department  has  had  practically  no  business  before  it  for  10 
years,  because,  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1910,  less  than  50,000 
horsepower  has  been  developed  on  the  navigable  rivers  of  the  United 
States. 

Under  the  new  act  we  have  not  only  to  do  what  the  several  depart- 
ments have  hitherto  done,  but  we  are  required,  among  other  things, 
to  determine  that  every  project  which  comes  before  us  is  so  located 
and  designed  as  to  be  consistent  with  a  comprehensive  scheme  of 
development  of  the  water  resources  of  the  stream  which  shall  take 
into  account  not  only  water  power,  but  navigation,  irrigation,  and 
all  other  beneficial  uses.  The  departments  never  had  to  do  that 
before,  and  never  did  it.  We  are  required  to  pass  in  detail  upon  the 
plans  presented — structural  details,  mechanical  details,  electrical 
details.  This  has  never  been  done  before  except  in  rare  instances. 
We  are  required  to  establish  a  system  of  public  utility  accounting  for 
all  licenses  under  the  provisions  of  the  act.  It  has  never  been  at- 
tempted before.  We  are  required  to  value  properties  licensed  under 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       75 

previous  laws  which  may  come  under  the  new  law.     This  has  never 
been  done  by  any  of  the  departments  before. 

We  are  required  to  exercise  sufficient  supervision  over  project 
works  to  assure  their  adequate  maintenance  and  efficient  operation 
and  to  prescribe  the  amounts  which  shall  be  set  aside  into  depreciation 
reserves  to  take  care  of  deferred  maintenance  and  of  replacement  of 
structures  or  equipment  worn  out  in  service.  This  has  never  been 
done  before.  We  are  required  to  regulate  rates,  service,  and  securities 
in  intrastate  business  wherever  the  several  States  have  not  provided 
agencies  for  performing  such  duties  themselves  and  in'  interstate 
business  whenever  the  individual  States  have  not  the  power  to  act  or 
can  not  agree.  This  has  never  been.done  by  the  Federal  Government 
before.  Whenever  a  licensee  makes  use  of  a  headwater  improvement 
of  another  licensee  or  of  the  United  States  we  are  required  to  determine 
the  proper  share  of  the  annual  costs  of  such  improvements  which  shall 
be  paid  by  the  licensee  benefited.  This  has  never  been  done  before. 

Particular  emphasis  should  be  placed  upon  the  duties  of  the  com- 
mission with  respect  to  passing  upon  the  design  and  cost  of  project 
works,  upon  property  valuation,  and  upon  the  formulation  and  ad- 
ministration of  the  accounting  system.  Certain  of  the  projects 
applied  for  exceed  in  magnitude  anything  yet  attempted  in  the  world 
in  connection  with  power  development.  Their  cost  wrill  run  into 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  The  design  of  the  structures  deter- 
mines not  only  the  extent  and  the  efficiency  of  the  utilization  of  the 
resources  but  the  cost  of  the  project  as  well.  Every  dollar  of  such 
cost,  which  the  commission  allows  to  be  entered  upon  the  property 
investment  account  of  these  licensees,  is  a  potential  liability  of  the 
United  States,  for  it  determines  the  price  at  which  the  United  States 
may  take  over  the  properties  at  the  termination  of  the  license  period. 
An  intelligent,  expert  supervision  over  the  design  and  construction 
of  project  works  is,  therefore,  essential.  A  similar  attitude  must  be 
taken  toward  additions  and  betterments  of  project  works,  arid 
toward  maintenance  and  replacement. 

The  accounting  system  will  determine  how  the  various  items  of 
expense  shall  be  charged  upon  the  books  of  the  licensee,  how  depre- 
ciation reserves  shall  be  maintained  and  disposed  of,  and  how  and 
when  the  amortization  reserves  required  under  section  10  (d)  of  the 
act  shall  be  created  and  applied.  Both  reserves  affect  the  price 
which  must  be  paid  for  the  properties.  The  accounting  system  will 
also  determine  currently  the  property  investment,  the  revenues  and 
expenses  and  the  classification  of  each,  the  rate  of  return  which  is 
being  earned,  and  all  the  other  data  which  will  be  necessary  not  only 
for  fixing  the  price  to  be  paid  for  the  properites  if  taken  over  by  the 
United  States  or  by  any  other  agency,  public  or  private,  but  also  for 
fixing  the  amount  upon  which  service  charges  may  be  based  during 
the  period  of  the  license.  Finally,  the  valuations  which  must  be  made 
under  the  provisions  of  section  23  of  the  act  will  determine  the  "fair 
value"  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  existing  property 
which  will  be  allowed  to  go  upon  the  books  of  licensees  as  their 
"'net  investment"  when  licenses  for  such  projects  are  issued. 

The  determination  of  values  and  the  creation  and  administration 
of  the  accounting  system  on  correct  principles  is  of  more  importance 
in  connection  with  power  projects  under  the  Federal  water  power 
act  than  the  similar  functions  exercised  by  the  Interstate  Commerce 


76        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Commission  with  respect  to  railroads;  for  while  the  findings  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  are  evidence  of  the  facts,  to  be 
taken  into  consideration  in  rate  making  proceedings,  the  findings  of 
the  Federal  Power  Commission  under  the  provisions  of  its  law  are  the 
facts  themselves  upon  which  not  only  may  rates  be  regulated  but  also 
purchase  effected.  The  difference  between  an  administration  of  the 
act  through  a  personnel  trained  and  experienced  in  the  duties  to  be 
performed  and  a  personnel  neither  trained  nor  experienced  ma>'  well 
mean  a  difference  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollai^s  in  the  potential 
liabilities  assumed  by  the  United  States  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
jects already  before  the  commission. 

There  are  many  other  new  duties  or  requirements  of  lesser  im- 
portance, but  I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  extent  of  the 
responsibility  and  the  amount  of  work  which  the  commission  has 
with  respect  to  every  application  brought  before  it,  is  at  1'east  five 
times  greater  than  xvas  ever  exercised  by  the  other  departments  in 
the  business  which  they  have  handled  in  the  past.  I  will  attach  a 
statement  setting  forth  these  duties  in  detail. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  your  present  force  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  The  present  force  that  the  commission  has  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Myself  and  an  engineer  officer  from  the  Department 
of  War. 

Mr.  SMITH.  An  engineer  officer  from  where? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  From  the  War  Department. 

Mr.  SMITH.  An  Army  officer. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  have  a  stenographer,  probably  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  sir;  we  have  no  authority  under  this  act  to 
employ  a  clerk  or  a  messenger  or  a  single  individual  other  than 
myself. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  haven't  you  brought  in  some  other  departments, 
other  personnel  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir;  I  understood  the  question  to  be  what  per- 
sonnel have  we  authority  to  employ.  The  act  provided  that  the  work 
of  the  commission  should  be  done  through  the  Departments  of  Agri- 
culture, Interior,  and  War,  and  their  engineering,  technical  and  other 
personnel.  We  have  drawn  personnel  from  the  three  departments  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  We  are  also  utilizing  the  field  forces  of  the 
three  departments,  and  they  are  the  only  field  forces  we  have.  We 
have  drafted  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture  three  times  the  per- 
sonnel that  they  used  on  that  work  before  the  passage  of  this  act. 
The  Washington  office  of  that  department  had  formerly  a  salary 
liability  of  $5,500  a  year.  It  is  carrying  now  a  salary  liability  of 
$18,830  and  it  is  a  charge  against  the  Secretary's  Office,  the  Forest 
Service,  the  Bureau  of  Markets,  the  Bureau  of  Entomology,  the 
States  Relations  Service,  and  the  Bureau  of  Public  Roads.  We  nave  a 
personnel  carried  against  the  Interior  Department  involving  $19,700. 
We  have  drawn  from  the  War  Department  a  personnel  involving  a 
liability  against  that  department  of  $34,240.  So  that  the  total  per- 
sonnel we  have  drawn  from  the  three  departments  represent  31  indi- 
viduals, with  a  total  liability  against  the  three  departments  of  $72,770,, 
which  is  considerably  in  excess  of  the  similar  liabilities  in  the  past. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  the  names  and  amounts  ? 


PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       77 


Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  insert  them  in  the  records  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  that  bring  forward  all  the  high-class  men  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  It  brings  in  all  they  had  available  for  the  work; 
from  the  Department  of  Agriculture  not  only  all  they  had  but  even 
more,  and  similarly  from  the  Department  of  Interior  and  the  Depart- 
ment of  War. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right,  put  them  in. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  so. 

(The  statement,  afterwards  furnished  by  the  witness,  is  here  printed 
in  full  in  the  record,  as  follows:) 

Personnel  detailed  or  assigned  to  Federal  Power  Commission  by  Departments  of  War- 

Interior,  and  Agriculture. 


Position  in  commis- 
sion. 

Department. 

Bureau. 

Incumbent. 

Base 

compen- 
sation. 

Date  of 
assign- 
ment or 
detail. 

ENGINEERING. 

Chief  engineer  

War  . 

Engineers  . 

Lieut.  Col.  Wm.Kelly  . 

1  $6  120 

1920. 
Sept     1 

Assistant  engineer 

do 

do 

Maj.  H.  Bennion 

i  5  300 

Oct     21 

Do  

do  

do  

Capt.  M.  J.  Noyes  

1  3,  200 

Nov.  24 

Do  

Interior 

Geological  Survey 

R.  W.  Davenport.  . 

3  240 

Oct.      1 

Do 

do 

Reclamation  Service 

E.  C.  Bebb 

3  000 

Nov      1 

Do 

Forest  Service 

R  R  Randell 

3  000 

Aug    16 

Junior  engineer 

Interior 

Geological  Survey 

David  J.  Guy     ...  . 

2  100 

Nov.    3 

Draftsman 

War 

Air  Service 

F.  D.  Bradford 

1  800 

Nov     1 

Do  

Agriculture 

Public  Roads  

L.  H.  Schlegel  

1,620 

Oct.    27 

LAW. 

Chief  counsel 

War 

Judge  Advocate  Gen- 

Maj. Lewis  Call 

i  5  000 

Aug     6 

Attorney  

Agriculture 

eral. 
Forest  Service 

J.  F.  Lawson  

3  250 

Nov.  24 

Assistant  attorney 

Interior 

Solicitor's  office 

J.  W.  Mitchell 

2  000 

Oct     19 

ACCOUNTS. 

Chief  accountant  
Assistant  accountant 

War  

Agriculture 

Engineers  

Forest  Service 

Wm.  V.King  
Chas.  W.  Friede 

7.500 
3  600 

Oct.   27 
Nov.  11 

OPERATION. 

Chief  clerk 

Interior 

Reclamation  Service 

F  W  Griffith 

2  400 

\ug    21 

Clerk-stenographer 

do 

Geological  Survev 

Miss  M.  Thorwarth 

620 

Oct     25 

Do 

do 

Indian  Office 

Lee  Morris 

600 

Nov      1 

Do.. 

.   .     do.. 

Reclamation  Service 

MissM.  Napier 

440 

Aug    18 

Do  

Agriculture  . 

Forest  Service  

Miss  M.  Waters  

.400 

Aug.     1 

Do 

do 

Miss  S   Kent 

400 

Oct     22 

Librarian  . 

War 

Quartermaster 

Miss  M   Rippier 

200 

Oct     21 

Clerk-stenographer.  . 

...     do..     .. 

Engineers  

Miss  N.  Gibson  

200 

Sept     2 

Do.  . 

Agriculture 

Forest  Service 

Mrs  M.  Ward 

200 

Oct     18 

Do. 

do 

Entomology 

Miss  A    M    Winning- 

200 

Oct     25 

Do. 

War 

Air  Service 

ham. 
Miss  D   Dryer 

200 

Nov     1 

Do 

\griculture 

States  Relations 

Miss  M  Simpson 

200 

Nov     4 

Do.. 

Interior 

General  Land  Office 

Mrs  L   Groat 

'200 

Nov    15 

Do 

War 

Engineers 

Mrs  M  Sexton 

200 

Sept     8 

Do  

Interior 

Reclamation  Service 

Mrs  A    L.  Gudyer 

'100 

Dec.     2 

Messenger  boy 

Agriculture 

Secretary's  Office 

Edward  Krause 

4SO 

Sept   14 

Do 

do 

do 

480 

Nov    *>$ 

1  Approximate  value  of  salary  and  all  allowances. 

Carried  by  Department  of  Agriculture,  11  employees  aggregating. 

Carried  by  Department  of  Interior,  10  employees  aggregating 

Carried  by  Department  of  Warj  10  employees  aggregating 


.118,830 

19, 700 

34, 240 

Total  *  31  employees 72, 770 


78        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  do  not  they  have  civil-service  examinations  and 
bring  more  men  and  women  in? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  They  would  have  to  pay  for  such  personnel  out  oi 
appropriations  granted  by  you  gentlemen  for  entirely  different  pur- 
poses. Congress  has  made  no  appropriations  to  these  department? 
to  increase  their  personnel  employed  on  water-power  work.  Such 
increase  would,  therefore,  mean  dropping  other  work  which  Congress 
has  authorized  and  directed  to  be  done.  An  examination  of  the 
table  I  have  inserted  will  show  the  degree  to  which  the  departments 
have  already  drawn  upon  such  appropriations  to  meet  the  emergence 
which  has  faced  the  commission.  In  several  instances  these  posi- 
tions are  being  financed  only  from  month  to  month  in  the  expectation 
that  the  commission  will  be  given  authority  to  use  its  own  appro- 
priations for  the  employment  of  its  own  personnel.  If  this  is  not 
done,  we  have  no  assurance  that  these  assignments  will  be  continued. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  you  put  on  a  hundred  men  at  $10,000  for  these 
hundred  projects,  and  put  them  into  this  commission,  they  would  be 
there  for  life,  and  we  would  never  on  earth  be  able  to  get  rid  of  them. 
That  is  the  trouble  with  all  these  bureaus,  that  whenever  you  create 
one  they  grow  like  mushrooms,  they  are  there  forever,  no  matter  if 
the  work  has  disappeared. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  have  never  been  sanguine  enough  to  believe  I  could 
get  even  one  at  $10,000. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  never  heard  of  a  Government  official  being 
dismissed  or  being  gotten  off  the  pay  roll  once  he  got  on  there,  and 
they  stay  there  forever.  I  was  wondering  if  we  could  not  provide 
some  limitation  on  the  demands  on  the  Federal  Treasury. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  must  be  justification  for  keeping  them,  if  they 
stay.  If  there  was  only  temporary  work  to  do  of  course  they  would 
have  to  go  when  it  is  done.  But  you  might  just  as  well  expect  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  go  out  among  the  departments 
and  borrow  men  temporarily  to  do  their  work  as  to  expect  us  to  be 
able  to  do  it  for  our  work.  I  am  afraid,  however,  that  you  are  not 
familiar  with  the  extent  to  which  the  technical  men  are  leaving  the 
Government  service.  They  are  not  staying.  They  are  leaving  by 
the  hundreds.  At  no  time  during  the  eleven  years  I  have  been  in  the 
Government  service  has  it  been  so  difficult  to  get  or  to  hold  competent, 
technical  men  as  in  the  last  three  years.  The  technical  services  of  the 
Government  are  breaking  down  because  of  the  impossibility  of  secur 
ing  or  keeping  a  competent  personnel  at  the  salaries  these  services 
are  permitted  to  pay. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  will  have  to  have  100 
men  or  more  at  $10,000  a  year  to  continue  on  after  this  work  has  been 
closed  up  ? 

Mr.  MJERRILL.  No,  sir;  not  after  it  is  closed  up,  or  at  any  other 
time. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Suppose  it  is  closed  up  in  the  next  two  years,  would 
you  still  have  to  have  them  on? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  do  not  consider  that  this  work  will  be  closed  up  in 
the  next  two  years,  but  whether  it  is  or  not,  so  long  as  I  am  responsi- 
ble for  the  work  I  shall  not  retain  any  man  at  any  salary  whose 
services  are  not  needed. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.     At  the  same  time  they  will  be  passed  on  ? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       79 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Certainly;  but  new  applications  are  coming  in  now 
at  the  rate  of  one  a  day,  and  have  been  for  months. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  apprehend  that  there  will  be  this  numerous 
flood  of  applications  all  along? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Not  the  number  that  we  are  receiving  now,  but 
under  any  personnel  I  would  hope  to  be  able  to  get  there  are  years  of 
work  ahead. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  assume  that  no  one  would  object  or  could  object  as 
a  business  proposition  to  furnishing  an  ample  supply  of  skilled  em- 
ployees for  actual  and  necessary  work.  But  I  have  a  kind  of  dread 
of  a  cart  blanche  authority  granted  by  the  Congress  to  put  on  an  un- 
limited personnel  and  pay  unlimited  prices,  and  I  see  no  limitation  in 
this  proposed  bill. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  not  put  any  limitation  here,  Mr.  Taylor, 
simply  because  this  is  a  general  authorization  that  we  have  to  have 
before  we  can  appear  before  the  Committee  on  Appropriations. 
When  we  go  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  then  we  will  have 
to  set  up  our  personnel  proposals. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Why  wouldn't  it  be  well  to  show  some  kind  of  limita- 
tion on  yourself  here  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  It  is  all  in  the  Book  of  Estimates. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  know,  but  in  this  proposed  law  that  you  are  applying 
for  now  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  don't  care  whether  you  put  on  a  limitation  or  not, 
if  you  put  on  a  reasonable  limit  under  which  we  may  get  men  compe- 
tent to  do  the  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  had  any  trouble  in  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture or  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior  under  civil-service  exami- 
nations in  getting  this  class  of  men  ?  Do  you  get  them  into  those  de- 
partments now  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  The  Department  of  Agriculture,  if  it  had  the  funds 
for  that  purpose,  I  assume  could  call  for  an  electrical  engineer,  or  a 
mechanical  engineer,  and  put  him  on  the  pay  roll,  even  though  they 
never  used  him  after  he  got  there,  but  assigned  him  to  the  work  of  the 
commission,  provided  the  department  on  work  of  its  own  required 
men  of  the  same  character. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  assume  for  the  purposes  of  my  question  that 
they  have  a  sufficient  amount  of  money.  Let  us  make  that  assump- 
tion. Is  there  any  question  as  to  calling  enough  of  these  men  and 
women  into  those  two  departments  over  there  to  work  as  well  as  they 
would  work  for  the  Federal  Power  Commission  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  is  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  not? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  First,  because  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  has 
ruled  that  while  any  department,  if  it  has  no  men  in  any  grade  or 
class  which  it  can  spare  for  the  work  of  the  commission,  may  employ 
additional  persons  in  such  grade  or  class  and  then  assign  them  to  the 
performance  of  such  work  as  the  commission  may  specifically  request 
such  department  to  do,  it  may  not  employ  in  any  grade  or  class  not 
required  in  its  own  work  any  person  for  purposes  of  assignment  to  the 
work  of  the  commission.  And  second,  because  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  has  a  salary  limit  of  $4,500,  and  there  are  certain  posi- 
tions to  be  filled  that  can  not  be  filled  at  any  such  a  figure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  On  the  Federal  Power  Commission  ? 


80        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  staff  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  Raker.  What  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  One  of  the  jobs  at  the  present  time  is  that  of  valuing 
$150,000,000  worth  of  property.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion pays  salaries  ranging  from  $6,500  to  $10,000  for  positions  of 
similar  character.  We  can  not  hope  to  get  competent  men  at  $4,500. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  of  the  things  you  are  trying  to  do  is  to  get  outside 
men  in  and  pay  higher  prices  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  sir.  Only  to  the  extent  that  we  can  not  get 
them  inside.  We  have  already  taken  such  men  as  the  three  depart- 
ments had  and  could  spare  and  the  departments  in  addition  have 
gone  out  and  gotten  other  men  and  assigned  them  to  the  Federal 
Power  Commission  in  order  to  give  us  even  the  personnel  we  now 
have. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  particular  work  is  there  that  you  can  not  have 
done  at  that  price  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  You  can  not  get  a  valuation  engineer  at  $4,500  who 
could  do  valuation  work  on  these  projects. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Which  project  do  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  already  have  pending  some  14  cases  requiring 
valuations,  involving  738,000  horsepower  and  probably  not  less  than 
$150,000,000.  Among  these  are  the  properties  of  the  hydroelectric 
developments  on  the  American  side  at  Niagara  Falls. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  not  the  War  Department  have  that  under  its 
supervision  before  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Whatever  supervision  was  exercised  was  exercised 
by  the  War  Department. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Didn't  it  have  under  it  personnel  of  the  highest  ability, 
men  rated  at  the  highest  ability  as  engineers  anywhere  in  the  world, 
and  aren't  they  there  yet? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  It  has  not  done  any  work  of  that  character. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  could  be  transferred  from  that  department  to 
this  department.  Lots  of  those  men  have  been  turned  loose,  dis- 
charged, and  they  can  recall  them.  They  are  engineers  of  the  highest 
ability  of  any  in  the  world;  you  can  not  beat  them,  and  they  can  cer- 
tainly do  that  work. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  They  have  never  done  any  work  of  that  kind  in  the 
Department  of  War. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  law  requiring  the  Department  of  War 
to  do  that,  is  there? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  What  do  you  pay  by  way  of  per  diem  and  allow- 
ance? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  a  statutory  limit  of  $4  a  day. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  you  granted  any  permits? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  not. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Or  any  licenses  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  sir. 
.     Mr.  SINNOTT.  Can  not  all  this  force  do  anything? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  They  have  done  work  right  along,  on  time  and  over- 
time. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  you  have  not  given  out  one  permit  with  all  this 
force  that  you  have  on  hand? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       81 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  to  do  many  things  before  we  can  grant  a 
permit.  We  have  to  draft  regulations.  We  have  to  advertise, 
under  the  provisions  of  the  law,  eight  weeks  in  the  public  press.  We 
have  to  call  for  field  reports,  and  we  have  had  no  one  to  call  on  except 
the  men  in  the  department. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  When  was  this  law  enacted  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  June  10. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  You  have  been  six  months  on  this  work  and  have 
done  nothing  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  done  many  things,  notwithstanding  the 
long  delay  in  securing  assignments  of  personnel. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  At  that  rate  it  seems  to  me  it  would  take  100  years 
if  we  gave  you  100  men. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  While  we  have  a  personnel  oi  31  at  the  present  time 
they  have  not  been  available  for  the  full  period  of  six  months.  In 
fact,  the  average  period  of  assignment  has  been  only  59  working  days. 
When  the  commission  organized  early  in  July  it  had  no  force  and  no 
quaiters.  The  first  work  started  was  the  drafting  oi"  regulations 
covering  applications  for  permits  and  licenses  and  related  matters. 
This  was  done  through  an  interdepartmental  committee.  Extended 
public  hearings  were  held  and  the  regulations  were  adopted  on  Sep- 
tember 3.  The  Engineer  officer  was  unable  to  report  until  September 
1.  The  Committee  on  Buildings  and  Grounds  did  not  make  space 
available  for  the  offices  of  the  commission  until  the  middle  of  October. 
In  order  to  ascertain  its  authority  to  employ  certain  personnel  it  was 
necessary  for  the  commission  to  await  the  interpretation  of  the  law 
by  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury.  It  has  been  necessary  also  to 
return  to  the  applicants  more  than  80  per  cent  of  the  applications 
submitted  in  order  that  additional  data  might  be  supplied.  .  Only  44 
of  the  146  projects  applied  for  are  complete  at  the  present  time. 

For  the  examination  of  all  these  applications,  for  the  preparation 
of  the  engineering  section  of  the  regulations,  and  for  many  the  other 
administrative  matters  which  involve  engineering  questions,  there 
have  been  only  seven  engineers  available,  and  these  have  been  on  duty 
an  average  period  of  only  60  working  days.  The  act  requires  every 
application  to  be  advertised  for  a  period  of  eight  weeks  before  any  action 
can  be  taken,  and  after  the  advertising  period  has  expired  public 
hearings  are  to  be  held  when  requested.  Projects  are  not  advertised 
unless  the  applications  are  sufficiently  complete  to  indicate  the 
character  and  extent  of  development  proposed.  Forty-seven  projeccs 
have  been  advertised  to  date,  and  on  only  four  of  these  has  the  period 
of  advertising  expired,  the  earliest  on  December  7,  the  latest  on 
December  18.  On  none  of  these  four  projects  have  field  reports  yet 
been  received.  On  two,  the  applicants  have  not  yet  filed  the  neces- 
sary plans,  and  on  the  fourth  a  public  hearing  has  been  requested. 
Action  upon  applications  under  the  new  law  is  far  from  being  the 
simple  matter  it  was  under  previous  laws. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  only  point  in  my  question  is,  I  have  heard  a 
great  deal  of  talk  about  economy  but  have  not  seen  any  evidence  of 
it  anywhere.  I  was  just  in  hopes  there  might  be  some  disposition 
here  to  economize  somewhere. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  this  is  a  poor  place  to  try  to  economize, 
perhaps.  It  is  a  growing  department,  one  which,  is  just  being 
29414—21 6 


82        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

organized,  and  which  has  a  tremendous  field  of  work  before  it,  and 
which  has  not  yet  a  trained  personnel,  and  can  not  secure  a  personnel 
at  the  present  rates  of  salaries.  It  is  a  law  which  will  become  self- 
sustaining,  which  is  a  thing  you  can  not  say  about  most  other  laws 
the  Congress  enacts;  and  the  sooner  these  permits  are  granted,  and 
works  are  put  into  operation  the  sooner  a  rental  will  come  in  to  the 
Government  to  reimburse  the  Government  for  its  outlay. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  this  in  addition  to  what  the 
Chairman  has  said,  that  while  it  may  be  self-sustaining,  nevertheless 
the  people  who  get  these  contracts  get  very  extended  tracts  of  land, 

Eublic  land,  and  take  it  from  taxation,  and  we  do  not  even  get  taxes 
*om  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  to  pay  the  Government  a  rental  for  the 
use  of  the  public  lands.  The  bill  so  provides,  and  that  produces 
another  source  of  revenue. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Of  course  we  all  want  to  make  the  law  effective. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  and  as  early  as  possible. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  but  we  don't  want  to  throw  the  doors  wide  open 
for  these  departments  to  grow  abnormally  on  what  they  feed  upon, 
you  might  say,  and  then  for  them  to  go  to  the  blue-sky  limit  with 
new  employees,  and  pa.y  salaries  without  any  check  on  them.  It 
would  bankrupt  seventeen  Governments. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Our  action  is  visaed  by  the  Committee  on  Ap- 
propriations. We  have  no  final  say  on  that  matter. 

§Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  very  familiar  with  the  Forestrv  Service,  and  we 
started  in  a  few  years  ago  by  Mr.  Pinchot  saying  it  would  be  self- 
supporting,  and  that  he  only  wanted  a  few  thousands  of  dollars,  and 
they  got  a  couple  of  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  then  it  got  up  to 
half  a  million  dollars,  and  then  on  to  a  million  dollars,  and  now  they 
have  to  have  $7,500,000  a  year  appropriated  by  the  Congress  to  keep 
it  going. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  comes  back  to  the  Treasury? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  About  $3,000,000. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  want  to  say  that  in  my  judgment  to  proceed  to 
operate  a  law  of  this  character  under  personnel  scattered  around 
through  the  various  departments  and  bureaus  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington would  bo  about  as  economical  and  about  as  practical  as  to  at- 
temr>t  to  run  the  hotel  down  here  on  the  Plaza  if  its  kitchen  was  in 
Anacostia,  its  dining  room  in  Georgetown,  and  its  office  in  Che^y 
Chase.  In  such  a  condition  there  would  be  no  way  of  getting  any 
supervision  over  the  work.  We  have  taken  into  the  commission, 
into  its  offices  and  under  my  direction,  such  personnel  as  the  depart- 
ments were  willing  to  give  us;  and  they  have,  as  I  said,  gone  to  a 
considerable  degree  beyond  any  liability  they  had  previously  as- 
sumed in  connection  with  water-power  administration.  We  have 
before  us  now  a  job  such  as  never  confronted  in  the  slightest  degree 
any  of  the  departments  hitherto. 

We  have  to  do  one  of  two  things:  (1)  We  must  either  have  a  suffi- 
cient personnel  to  operate  this  law;  or  (2)  allow  the  situation  to  con- 
tinue in  the  future  as  it  has  in  the  past,  with  our  water  powers  tied  up. 
Everything  was  stopped  for  10  years  because  we  had  no  legislation. 
I  do  not  believe  it  will  be  your  judgment,  having  enacted  legislation, 
that  we  should  stop  for  another  10  years  just  because  we  can  not  have 
the  means  to  put  the  law  into  effect. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       83 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Before  the  Water  Power  Committee,  in  that  elab- 
orate hearing,  there  was  a  very  strong  effort  to  consolidate  this  com- 
mission into  one  department,  wasn't  there? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  was,  to  a  certain  extent. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Then  there  was  an  effort  to  put  it  all  under  an  execu- 
tive of  some  kind,  but  the  sentiment  of  the  country  was  that  the 
water  powers  of  the  country,  of  the  United  States,  were  so  valuable, 
and  the  responsibility  so  far-reaching,  and  it  was  such  a  tremen- 
dously important  matter  that  it  was  not  really  safe  to  allow  it  all  to  go 
into  the  hands  of  one  individual,  and  we  thought  we  ought  to  hold 
these  three  Secretaries  responsible  for  this  great  work.  Wasn't  that 
the  theory,  and  wasn't  that  what  the  committee  finally  decided  upon  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  That  is  what  was  done. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Aren't  you  trying  to  get  away  from  that? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Isn't  that  the  ultimate  object  or  tendency  or  inevi- 
table result  of  this  movement  now  on  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Not  at  all.  The  three  members  of  that  commission 
are  just  as  much  responsible  for  the  work  of  their  employees,  of  the 
men  who  are  directly  under 'them,  as  they  are  of  the  work  in  their 
own  departments. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Who  gets  all  these  employees  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Through  the  commission. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  know,  but  who  gets  them  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Do  you  mean,  who  is  the  individual  who  does  it  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  am  the  responsible  officer  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  you  the  one  to  employ  engineers  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  am. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  opposed  to  having  them  classified  under  the 
civil  service  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Not  at  all.  I  assume  that  under  the  language  in 
the  bill  before  you,  all  personnel  will  be  put  under  civil  service. 
The  Civil  Service  Commission  ruled  that  I.  whose  appointment  is 
provided  for  under  this  act,  am  under  civil  service  rules,  and  that 
the  appointment  must  be  made  a  civil  service  appointment.  That 
was  done  although  the  position  was  specifically  named  in  the  act. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  employees  would  fall  into  the  classified 
service,  and  from  that  fact  they  are  subject  to  the  civil  service  rules. 
But  that  may  not  cover  the  experts  that  you  wish  to  get. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  that  they  are  right  on  there  for  life  whenever 
you  employ  one. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  certainly  do  not  object  to  your  enacting  a  provi- 
sion that  they  shall  be  under  the  civil  service. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  that  you  can  get  as  competent  engineers 
under  civil  service  rules  as  by  securing  men  from  business  corpora- 
tions who  employ  them  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Then  why  do  you  say  you  are  willing  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  say  I  have  no  objection,  because  that  is  the  way 
it  is  usually  done. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  This  bill  15126  is  reenacting  section  2  of  the  Water 
Power  Act.  What  is  new  in  the  way  of  language  there  ? 


84        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  is  certain  new  language  placed  in  the  first 
paragraph  by  the  order  of  the  commission.  That  was  discussed  this 
morning  by  the  Secretary  of  War.  Beginning  at  line  9,  it  says, 
"in  the  performance  of  its  work  the  commission  shall  utilize "- 

Mr.  SIXXOTT  (interposing).  What  page  are  you  reading  from? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  The  second  page. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Here  I  find  in  the  copy  I  have  it  begins  at  line  1 1 . 

Mr.  MERRILL.  On  the  copy  I  have  here  of  that  bill  it  begins  at 
line  9. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  was  a  new  print.  I  offered  it  on  the  floor 
December  30  myself. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  have  not  the  other  print.  But  beginning  at  line  9, 
it  says — 

In  the  performance  of  its  work  the  commission  shall  utilize  in  so  far  as  practicable 
the  field  offices  and  field  personnel  of  the  Departments  of  War.  Interior,  and  Agricul- 
ture, and  it  is  authorized  to  employ  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  elsewhere  such 
expert.  technical,  clerical,  and  other  personnel  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  performing  the  duties  imposed  by  this  act,  and  as  may  be  from  time  to  time  appro- 
priated for  by  Congress. 

That  is  for  the  reason  that  we  believed  the  Washington  personnel 
should  be  directly  under  the  control  of  the  commission,  so  as  to 
handle  the  work  efficiently  and  economically. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Field  offices  and  field  men  is  language  that  is  in  the 
old  bill. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  use  now  and  purpose  to  continue  to  use  the  field 
offices  and  personnel  of  the  Departments  of  Agriculture,  Interior,  and 
Wnr. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  The  only  new  language  is  "so  far  as  practicable "  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  And  the  word  "field.  And  there  is  new  language 
beginning  on  line  12  of  this  print— 

And  it  is  authorm>d  to  employ  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  elsewhere  such 
cxpcri,  ;<'chnical.  clerical,  uiid  other  personnel  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose 
i  >rinii)ur  the  duties  imposed  by  this  act,  and  as  may  be  from  time  to  time  appro- 
priated for  by  Congress. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  all  new  language  ? 
Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  follows  is  new  ? 
Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir;  it  is— 

The  detail  of  persons  for  such  purpose  from  the  Departments  of  War,  Interior,  and 
Agriculture,  or  the  transfer  from  such  departments  of  any  persons  engaged  in  duties 
which  by  this  act  are  conferred  upon  the  commission  is  hereby  authorized. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  new  ? 
Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  did  not  read  the  word  "Agriculture"  as  I  heard. 
Did  you  omit  it  inadvertently  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir.     And  it  goes  on — 

And  the  restrictions  on  transfers  from  one  executive  department  or  independent 
establishment  to  another  imposed  by  the  acts  of  Congress  approved  June  22,  1906,  and 
October  6,  1917,  shall  not  apply  to  such  transfers  so  made. 

That  I  would  like  to  explain. 
Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  new  language  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir.  We  have  now  assigned  to  the  commission 
certain  individuals  who  have  been  employed  by  the  departments 


PEOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       85 

specifically  for  the  purpose  of  assigning  them  to  the  commission. 
We  believe,  as  I  stated,  that  the  only  economical  and  efficient  way  to 
operate  the  office  of  the  commission  in  the  District  of  Columbia  is  to 
have  its  personnel  directly  under  the  commission.  Those  individuals 
are  carried  now  on  the  rolls  of  the  several  departments. 

Under  existing  law  they  could  not  be  transferred  for  three  years, 
because  they  either  have  been  employed  or  transferred  from  some 
other  department  at  a  recent  date.  If  the  commission  is  given 
authority  to  employ  personnel  and  to  transfer  individuals  from 
other  organizations  and  if  the  restrictions'  named  are  not  removed, 
either  one  or  the  other  of  two  things  will  happen:  (1)  the  commis- 
sion will  have  to  drop  the  men  it  now  has  and  start  over  and  get 
new  men;  or  (2)  the  departments  must  carry  them  on  their  rolls 
for  three  years.  One  of  two  men,  in  whom  I  am  particularly  inter- 
ested, is  carried  on  the  rolls  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  and 
the  other  on  the  rolls  of  the  War  Department.  The  Department 
of  Agriculture  is  financing  the  assignment  from  month  to  month  in 
the  hope  that  some  means  will  be.  adopted  by  which  the  commission 
itself  can  take  over  the  charge.  Unless,  therefore,  we  have  this 
legislation  we  stand  to  lose  these  men  who  have  been  working  with 
us  for  months,  and  they  are  the  chief  accountant  and  the  assistant 
accountant,  without  whose  work  we  would  be  completely  at  a  stand- 
still. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  do  you  say  you  stand  to  lose  them? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  The  departments  will  be  unwilling  to  carry  them 
indefinitely  on  their  rolls  if  they  are  not  working  in  the  department, 
and  must  be  paid  out  of  appropriations  authorized  by  the  Congress 
for  other  purposes  and  which  the  departments  need  for  such  purposes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  can  not  yet  get  it  through  my  head  what  difference 
it  makes  if  a  man  is  employed  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  for 
a  certain  purpose,  especially  inasmuch  as  this  commission  is  allowed 
to  call  on  the  Department  of  Agriculture  for  that  man,  or  any  other 
man  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture;  and  if  the  man  is  thus  em- 
ployed I  can  not  understand  how  he  can  do  different  work  or  better 
work  or  would  be  able  to  do  more  work  if  he  were  employed  under 
this  act  if  it  became  a  law.  I  frankly  state  I  am  seeking  information. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  This  is  the  situation,  Judge,  the  secretaries  of  the 
Departments  of  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture  form  this  commission. 
It  is  the  duty  of  those  department  heads,  both  as  department 
heads  and  as  members  of  this  commission,  to  decide  whether  they 
will  give  preference  to  the  work  of  the  commission  or  to  the  work  of 
their  departments,  both  of  which  they  are  required  to  do  by  Con- 
gress, but  both  of  which  they  can  not,  in  fact,  do.  Now,  they  have 
decided,  up  to  the  extent  of  the  personnel  now  assigned  and  for  the 
period  necessary  for  the  commission  to  receive  authorization  from 
Congress  to  use  its  own  appropriation,  that  they  will  let  their  depart- 
mental work  go,  and  will  do  the  work  of  the  commission.  As  I  said 
awhile  ago,  the  Department  of  Agriculture  is  carrying  for  the  com- 
mission in  the  District  of  Columbia  a  salary  liability  of  over  $18,000 
for  men  who  are  doing  no  work  for  the  department.  This  is  $13,000 
more  than  the  department  spent  on  similar  activities,  and  by  so 
much  must  they  curtail  their  own  work  which  they  have  been  author- 
ized and  directed  by  Congress  to  perform. 


86        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Mr.  RAKEK.  What  difference  does  it  make?  It  is  to  coordinate, 
harmonize,  and  keep  these  departments  all  together,  and  keep  plenty 
of  work  for  the  men  so  they  will  have  plenty  of  work  to  do,  so  that 
when  the  work  lags  in  one  they  can  he  put  to  the  other  WOTV  as  it 
increases,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  is  no  lack  of  work  to  be  done.  In  so  far  as 
they  supply  personnel  to  the  commission,  they  must  drop  work  of 
their  own.  Furthermore,  it  is  not  a  mere  question  of  assigning  indi- 
viduals already  in  the  departments.  Certain  of  the  duties  of  the 
commission  require  individuals  of  a  character  that  the  departments 
do  not  have. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  just  want  to  know  what  particular  class  of  man  or 
woman  that  is  needed  in  this  great  Federal  Power  Commission  that 
isn't  found  or  can't  he  found  in  one  of  the  departments.  I  would 
like  to  have  you  describe  him  or  her. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Very  well,  I  will  give  you  an  example  now.  We 
are  required  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  to  establish  a  system  of 
public  utility  accounting  for  all  licenses.  A  system  similar  to  that 
prescribed  by  the  railroad  commission  in  your  State,  the  State  of 
California,  and  in  other  States.  That  system  has  to  be  established 
in  conformity,  as  far  as  practicable,  with  the  existing  state  systems. 
Nobody  has  ever  boon  employed  in  the  Department  of  War,  Interior, 
or  Agriculture  who  has  ever  had  any  experience  in  such  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  bless  your  life,  don't  they  have  a  system  of 
accounting  in  the  great  Department  of  War  that  equals  any  State  ? 
Then  if  they  haven't  oughtn't  they  go  to  a  State  and  find  out  and 
have  men  that  are  competent  for  public  accounting  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Certainly  not,  Judge  Raker.  It  is  absolutely  a 
different  type  of  accounting.  They  only  account  for  receipts  and 
expenditures  in  the  Government  departments.  They  never  keep 
cost  accounting,  or  if  they  do,  it  is  of  a  different  character.  They 
do  not  have  to  account  for  operating  revenue  or  operating  expenses, 
for  depreciation,  for  sinking  funds,  or  for  the  many  other  items  that 
are  involved  in  public  utility  accounting  practice.  It  is  absolutely 
a  different  kind  of  work  and  the  only  place  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  where  you  could  get  a  man  of  that  kind  is  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission.  I  went  to  them  and  asked  them  if  they 
would  not  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  which  permits  temporary 
detail,  detail  us  a  man  that  would  help  establish  an  accounting  system 
and  they  said  they  were  utterly  unable  to  do  so  on  account  of  the 
volume  of  the  new  work  placed  upon  them  by  the  recent  transporta- 
tion act;  but  that  if  we  could  get  the  money  to  pay  the  man  when 
taken  over  so  that  they  could  use  his  salary  to  employ  another,  they 
would  do  it.  We  finally  got  the  assistant  director  of  their  bureau 
of  finance  transferred  to  the  War  Department  for  this  work  and  he 
is  paid  from  the  appropriations  for  the  rivers  and  harbors.  To 
accomplish  this  transfer  took  nearly  two  months  of  time,  and  re- 
quired two  decisions  from  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury.  That 
is  a  sample  of  the  handicaps  under  which  the  commission  has  been 
trying  to  get  enough  personnel  to  begin  its  work.  No  business 
organization  would  attempt  to  proceed  on  such  basis  for  an  hour. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  else  you  desire  to  say  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  wish  to  speak  about  a  matter  you  were  questioning 
this  morning.  This  appropriation  of  $100,000  on  page  3.  That 


PEOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       87 

is  the  appropriation  carried  in  the  existing  law  an  1  it  is  the  only 
appropriation  the  commission  has  for  the  fiscal  year.  If  you  strike 
that  out  it  closes  the  doors  of  the  commission  the  moment  the  bill 
is  signed,  because  there  will  not  be  a  cent  to  operate  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  sundry  civil  bill  carries  $100,000  for  the 
next  fiscal  year,  but  this  is  for  the  present  year. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  For  the  present  fiscal  year. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  I  had  in  mind  is  under  the  new  rule, 
our  authority  to  appropriate. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  This  is  the  existing  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  copied  the  existing  law  '. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir.  There  are  one  or  two  points  upon  which 
I  would  like  to  touch  briefly.  In  the  paragraph  on  page  3  we  have 
amplified  somewhat  the  provisions  concerning  the  character  of  ex- 
penses that  are  covered  under  the  appropriation.  We  have  added 
in  the  second  line  "personal  services  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and 
elsewhere,"  as  we  felt  such  language  would  be  needed  if  we  employed 
personnel.  We  have  also  added  '  'reimbursement  of  other  '  overn- 
ment  departments  or  agencies  for  expenses  incurred  in  the  per- 
formance of  work  for  the  commission."  We  are  at  the  present  time 
paying  travel  and  field  expenses  of  the  men  in  the  three  departments 
who  are  engaged  in  field  investigations.  We  are  not  certain  whether 
we  have  the  authority  to  do  it  under  the  existing  laws  or  not,  but  if 
the  auditor  rules  otherwise,  the  departments  themselves  will  have 
to  pay  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  bill  was  intended  to  be  worked  through  the  three 
departments  with  the  commissioners  as  the  head  and  not  to  create  a 
separate,  indepen  lent  outside  commission,  and  I  wonder  if  that  is 
really  the  intent  of  this  Federal  water  power  bill. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Let  me  say  this.  We  are  not  preparing  to  create 
any  independent  outside  water-power  commission.  It  will  consist, 
as  at  present,  of  the  heads  of  the  three  departments.  We  are  merely 
creating  a  staff  for  performing  the  work  of  the  commission.  I  pre- 
sume it  was  the  thought  of  Congress  that  since  this  work  had  formerly 
been  done  by  the  three  departments,  they  could  still  continue  to  do 
it.  But  as  I  said  awhile  ago,  the  situation  has  completely  changed. 
There  is  enough  before  the  commission  at  the  present  time,  if  they 
work  no  faster  than  the  departments  worked  in  the  past,  to  keep  it 
busy  for  a  hundred  years.  We  not  only  have  five  times  as  much 
work  right  now,  measured  by  horsepower  alone  as  the  three  depart- 
ments had  in  twenty  years,*  but  we  also  have  many  more  duties  to 
perform  in  connection  with  each  application,  and  duties  of  a 
character  never  hitherto  attempted  by  the  departments. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  there  in  this  statement,  and  I  think  it  is 
applicable  right  here,  that  the  three  departments  are  honeycombed 
with  idle  people  struggling  to  exist  on  doing  nothing.  Is  there  any- 
thing in  that  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  My  experience  and  observation  is  limited  to  the 
Forest  Service  and,  recently,  to  the  Geological  Survey.  I  know  it  is 
not  true  in  the  Forest  Service  and  never  has  been  true  in  that  service. 
I  have  seen  no  evidence  yet  in  the  Geological  Survey. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  were  10,000  statements  made  in  this  recent 
campaign  that  there  were  20,  30,  and  40  thousand,  and  as  high  as 


88        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

80,000  surplus  clerks  here  in  the  service,  and  members  of  the  Repub- 
lican campaign  committee  boldly  told  the  country  they  were  going 
to  cut  off  40,000  Government  clerks  here  in  Washington  absolutely 
idle  and  useless  and  incumbering  the  rolls  and  doing  nothing. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  am  not  responsible  for  statements  made  in  a 
political  campaign. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  But  if  there  is  such  a  number  of  useless  and  idle 
employees  here — 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  would  like  to  get  hold  of  some  of  them.  I  under- 
stand there  were  also  statements  made  in  the  campaign  that  by  the 
dismissal  of  useless  employees  they  could  save  a  sum  of  money  which 
was  greater,  by  a  hundred  million  dollars,  than  the  entire  pay  roll 
of  all  the  civil  employees  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  was  all  denied  in  the  Democratic  platform. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  more  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  have  an  item  in  here  for  printing,  etc.  We 
have  had  to  print  letterheads  and  forms  for  advertising  required 
under  the  act,  voucher  forms,  etc.  I  do  not  know  whether  we  can 
print  anything  more  since  we  have  submitted  our  estimates  to  the 
Appropriations  Committee.  It  is  certain  that  we  can't  print  a  sheet 
of  paper  after  the  1st  of  July  without  this  authorization,  so  that  what 
we  suggest  in  here  is  a  general  authorization  with  the  details  to  be 
settled  oy  the  Committee  on  Appropriations. 

Mr.  WIN  SLOW.  Suppose  there  were  13,000  surplus  dorks  on  the 
rolls  in  Washington,  now  many  would  you  want? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Seventy-five.  I  haven't  any  trouble  in  getting 
clerical  assistance.  What  I  want  is  experts. 

Mr.  WINSLOW.  You  can't  make  a  hydraulic  engineer  out  of  a 
typewriter  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  It  hasn't  been  done  so  far. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Assuming  that  you  had  all  the  assistance  needed  at 
this  time,  how  long  would  it  take  you  to  grant  a  permit  on  the  Deschute 
Reservation  ( 

Mr.  MERRILL.  It  depends  on  the  order  in  which  we  take  up  the 
applications  that  are  before  us. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Assuming  you  take  up  all' of  those  before  you  get 
to  the  Deschute  Reservation  proposition  how  long  would  it  take  you 
to  get  to  it  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  If  we  had  all  the  assistance  we  could  properly  use 
and  we  were  not  delayed  by  request  for  hearings,  it  should  not  take 
longer  than  two  or  three  weeks  to  act  upon  licenses  in  the  Washington 
office  after  the  advertisements  have  been  completed  and  the  field 
reports  submitted.  We  would  not  be  justified  in  employing  a  per- 
sonnel sufficient  to  have  100  or  more  field  examinations  made  simul- 
taneously. It  would  take  at  least  a  year  and  probably  more  to 
handle  the  applications  now  before  the  commission  with  the  personnel 
for  which  we  presented  estimates  for  the  fiscal  year  1922.  Under 
present  conditions  our  efforts  must  primarily  be  directed  toward 
completing  the  regulations  and  preparing  forms  for  applications  for 
permits  and  licenses.  While  we  are  having  field  examinations  made 
as  rapidly  as  it  can  be  done,  we  must  depend  entirely  upon  such  field 
personnel  as  the  departments  have  available  for  assignment  to  this 
work  over  and  above  their  own  demands  upon  the  same  personnel. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       89 

We  have,  for  example,  sent  out  to  the  district  engineer  of  the  Forest 
Service  in  San  Francisco  35  applications  for  examination  and  report. 
If  he  can  complete  them  inside  of  a  year  he  is  doing  well. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Supplementing  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from 
Oregon,  suppose  there  is  an  objection  filed  to  the  granting  of  a  permit. 
In  addition  to  the  field  survey  your  commission  has  ample  power  now 
under  fhe  law  to  set  a  time  for  hearing  and  hear  all  interested  parties 
on  the  question  of  whether  or  not  the  permit  should  be  granted  and 
finally  whether  the  license  should  be  granted. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  are  doing  it  right  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  there  is  no  question  about  that? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  is  no  question.  We  advertise  in  a  newspaper, 
the  newspaper  with  the  largest  circulation  in  every  county  affected 
by  the  project.  We  notify  by  letter  the  governor  of  the  State  and 
the  head  of  every  State  department  that  is  interested  in  watei- 
power  development.  We  notify  county  authorities  and  the  mayor 
of  any  municipality  in  reach  of  the  project. 

Mi\  RAKER.  Do  you  give  those  parties  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
within  a  reasonable  distance  of  the  project  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  we  have  nobody  other  than  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington to  hold  the  hearings. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  to  bring  them  here  to  Washington?  Doesn't 
that  amount  almost  to  a  denial  of  justice? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir;  but  it  can't  be  helped  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  who  would  like  to  have  a 
chance  to  be  heard  and  are  entitled  to  it.  To  come  to  Washington 
is  a  denial  of  justice  to  those  people. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes ;  we  have  a  request  for  a  hearing  in  Kennowick, 
Wash.  We  can't  grant  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  would  be  your  suggestion  about  that  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  If  we  get  this  provision  here,  our  purpose  is  to 
organize  our  work  in  field  divisions,  using  the  existing  personnel  in 
the  three  departments  and  supplementing  them  by  employees  of  the 
commission  where  necessary.  In  my  opinion  we  should  allow  these 
field  officers  to  do  the  advertising  required  by  the  act,  to  give  the 
public  notice,  to  examine  the  applications,  and  to  hold  the  public 
hearing  and  to  submit  the  evidence  and  their  conclusions  to  the 
commission  for  review  and  action. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  one  other  question  remains  in  line  with  that 
suggestion.  You  feel  as  though  there  is  power  enough  in  the  com- 
mission to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  There  is  without  doubt. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  power  enough  under  the  law  for  the  com- 
mission to  do  that  now? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  what  you  lack  is — 

Mr.  MERRILL  (interposing).  Anybody  to  do  it. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  What  would  be  the  situation  providing  the  bill 
before  this  committee  failed  of  passage  and  providing  applications 
for  power  privileges  in  a  national  park  should  be  filed  ?  What  would 
be  the  situation  with  respect  to  hearings  on  those  applications  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  You  mean  if  this  bill  were  to  pass  ? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Yes. 


90        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


. 


tne 


Mr.  MERRILL.  They  would  have  to  come  to  Washington  to  be 
heard,  but  they  would  be  heard.  If  you  or  any  representative  of  the 
public,  or  public  agency,  asked  to  be  heard,  you  would  have  the 
privilege. 

Mr.  McFARLAND.  How  would  you  know? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  advertise  that  project. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Where  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  In  the  localities.  We  publish  these  notices  also  in 
the  technical  press  and  we  supply  them  to  the  newspaper  press. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Then  you  see  some  of  us  who  have  been  on  this 
firing  line  for  25  years  would  have  to  take  the  local  papers  in  the 
West  where  these  places,  all  these  national  parks  are,  in  order  to  have 
notice. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Don't  you  keep  a  scout  on  the  ground  all  the  time? 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Sure. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Mr.  McFarland  is  under  a  misapprehension.  We 
keep  a  mailing  list  in  the  department  to  mail  notices  to  anybody  who 
requests  it.  If  he  files  a  request  for  notice  he  would  get  a  notice. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  disposition  are  you  making  of  the  pending 
applications  for  homestead  entries  on  power  sites  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Within  power  reserves? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  The  commission  is  doing  this,  is  making  examinations 
to  determine  whether  they  should  be  opened  to  entry.  When  an 
application  comes  in  for  an  entry  in  a  power  site  reserve,  we  ask  the 
Forest  Service,  Geological  Survey,  or  General  Land  Office,  whichever 
is  better  fitted  to  furnish  the  information,  to  examine  the  application 
and  it  makes  its  report.  If  the  commission  finds  that  the  land  can  be 
opened  to  settlement  without  injury  to  the  power  site  it  is  opened. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  There  were  some  suspended  entries  covered  by  the 
act  itself,  weren't  there  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  That  is  handled  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  further  question,  saves  the  record  and  puts  the 
matter  in  the  record  so  it  relieves  the  public.  I  have  received  a 
good  many  letters  from  individuals,  from  chambers  of  commerce, 
county  organizations,  State  organizations,  fish  and  game  commis- 
sions, relative  to  placing  certain  dams  in  the  Klamath  River. 

Mr.  MERRILL.   Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  the  commission  agrees  upon  that  they  will 
make  a  thorough  examination  under  their  powers  to  see  whether  it 
is  practicable,  etc.? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  these  parties  and  all  will  be  given  an  opportu- 
nity to  be  heard  before  the  commission,  to  present  their  case  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes.  We  have  notified  the  Fish  and  Game  Com- 
mission of  California  of  the  fact  that  these  applications  were  filed, 
and  if  they  wanted  a  hearing  they  can  have  a  hearing. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  addition  to  that,  when  these  three  departments 
transfer  that  power  over  to  the  Water  Power  Commission  you  will 
be  able,  if  it  becomes  necessary,  to  take  the  testimony  if  the  testi- 
mony is  desired  near  the  location. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  hope  we  will  be  able  to  put  into  the  field  every- 
thing that  is  possible  to  do  in  the  field.  There  is  the  place  where  it 
should  be  done. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       91 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  other  question,  and  then  I  am  through.  The 
same  way  with  the  irrigation  system,  you  will  take  up  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  in  granting  the  permit  to  one  of  the  water  power 
companies  for  hydroelectric  development  that  you  will  not  allow 
the  water  to  be  used  in  such  a  way  that  it  can  not  be  used  for  irri- 
gation, if  by  proper  turning  it  from  the  wheel  it  can  be  utilized  as  it 
goes  through  the  dam  for  irrigation  purposes  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  will  not  do  that  if  we  have  somebody  to  send 
out  there  and  make  an  examination.  I  say,  if  we  have  anybody  to 
do  it  we  will  do  it.  We  are  faced  with  either  one  of  three  alterna- 
tives. We  must  have  additional  personnel  to  operate  this  act,  or 
we  must  ignore  the  provisions  of  the  act  in  order  to  issue  licenses, 
or  we  must  stop  development. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  are  people  on  both  sides,  contesting  parties, 
those  in  the  lower  part  of  our  State  and  those  in  the  upper  part, 
particularly  in  the  lower  part,  figuring  on  going  in  there  to  develop, 
particularly  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  When  that  comes  up  for 
development  those  parties  will  be  given  full,  free  opportunity  to 
present  the  facts  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  advertise  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  go  into  the  matter  of  water  rights  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  Yes,  sir.  A  man  has  to  establish  his  water  rights, 
and  we  refer  that  back  to  the  authority  which  is  in  charge. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  But  you  don't  claim  to  have  jurisdiction  over  water 
rights  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  if  there  is  a  controversy  between  the  relative 
merits  and  desirability  of  irrigation  water  for  power  purposes,  you 
don't  adjudicate  that  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  We  will  probably  take  that  up,  as  we  will  a  lot  of 
other  matters,  with  the  State  authorities  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  so  vital,  I  wish  you  would,  in  making  your 
answer,  just  look  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  know  what  the  provision  of  the  bill  is,  Judge, 
that  all  matters  shall  be  taken  into  consideration,  including  water 
power,  navigation,  and  other  beneficial  public  uses,  which  includes 
irrigation,  domestic  water  supplies,  and  every  other  use. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  estimate  the  cost  that  would  result  if 
15126  becomes  a  law? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  would  put  in  for  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  estimate 
we  presented  to  the  Appropriations  Committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well.  I  think  it  would  be  advantageous  to 
have  access  to  those  estimates. 

Mr.  MERRILL.  And  may  I  add  one  thing  more.  We  have,  as  1 
have  said,  no  authority  at  the  present  time  to  purchase  law  books, 
books  of  reference,  or  periodicals.  I  have  personally  turned  over  to 
the  commission  my  own  library,  consisting  of  two  or  three  thousand 
dollars'  worth  of  books.  1  am  personally  purchasing  technical  mag- 
azines necessary  for  the  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Don't  the  appropriation  for  the  next  fiscal  year 
take  care  of  that  ? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  For  the  next  fiscal  year  they  have  covered  that. 
What  I  would  like  for  you  to  do  is  to  put  in  following  the  figures 


92        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

"$100,000",  in  line  21,  these  words  uof  which  amount  not  exceeding 
$ —  -  may  be  expended  for  necessary  printing  and  binding,  and  not 
exceeding  $—  -  for  law  books,  books  of  reference,  periodicals,  and 
directories."  I  mean  make  an  amendment  that  will  authorize  the 
use  of  part  of  that  $100,000  for  the  balance  of  the  fiscal  year.  We 
can  not  do  it  as  it  now  stands. 

Tile    CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  submit  that  amendment? 

Mr.  MERRILL.  I  will  submit  it. 

I    would  like  also  to  submit  certain  exhibits  I  have  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  that  privilege. 

(The  data  submitted  by  Mr.  Merrill  is  as  follows:) 

IHTIES    AND    FIXCTIOXS    OF   THE    COMMISSION. 

The  commission  has  general  administrative  control  over  Mil  power  sites  on  the  navi- 
gable waters  and  on  the  public  lands  and  reservations  of  the  United  States,  and  over 
the  location,  design,  construction,  maintenance,  and  op..  >••:>!  ion  of  power  projects  upon 

such  sites.  It  has  the  p->wer  and  duty,  under  certain  conditions,  of  regulating  the 
financial  operations,  fixing  {he  Q  <!•••!. -nuining  the  character  of  service  and  of 

making  phvsical  valuations  of  ihe  properties  of  licensees  who  uti'i/e  surh  sites.  It 
horized  to  mak"  general  in ve^'i  rations  of  broad  scope  and  is  required  to  make 
corcii'i  special  i  PHIS  and  report  thereon  to  Congress.  It  is  further  authorized 

to  cooperate  with  Shit"  .;nd  X  oients  in  its  investigations,  and  to  pub- 

lish the  result^  of  ils  work  ii>  id  annual  reports. 

The  various  dutie^  and  fuiicii«-i.  •  <>i  the  e<i<;miissi'.>n  are  segregated  into  groups,  and 
ihe  menus  by  whidi  they  may  be  I  arc  discussed,  in  the  following  pages. 

References  are  to  seel  ion,  !  line,  of  the  pamphlet  print  of  the  act. 

I.  (  water  />o/<vr.s-. —  In  ih<-  general  administration  of  water 

places  the  following  duties  upon  the  commission: 

'•")  To  give  i  or  municipal!!  •  ii! ci.  10  be  interested"  of  the 

f;ling  of  any  application  for  a  license,  and  to  publish  noiic;.  of  such  application  for 
eight  weel  -!<!.  p.  II.  line  7:  sec.  !e.  p.  i!.  line  15. )i 

'In  To  file  \vi:h  !••  offices  notice  of  any  application  for  a  license  together 

with  a  description  of  ihe  lands  of  the  I'nited  States  affected  thereby.  (Sec.  24,  p.  46, 
line  14.) 

i  constructed  on  any  stream  over  which 

Cong1  but  whieh  is  not  defined  as  "luaigable  waters,"  whenever 

declaration  of  int< 
2:;.  p.  46,  line  2.) 


declaration  of  intention  to  construct  such  project  is  iiled  with  the  commission.     (Sec. 

16,  line  2.) 
[a]  To  hold  heniinvs  when  desirable  or  necessary  in  connection  with  any  applica- 


tion for  a  permit  or  license.  p.  12.  line  2 

i<  )  To  issue  prelim  i  or  power  projects.     (Sec.  4e,  p.  11,  line  12.) 

./  To  issue  license  for  po\\ » •'•  projects  and  Iran  [•••mission  lines  on  navigable  waters, 
public  hinds.  ,-  -.lions  of  the  I'nifed  Mules.  iSec.  4d,  p.  9,  line  11.) 

(g)  To  investigate  and  approve  all  voluntary  transfers  of  licenses.  (Sec.  8,  p.  18r 
line  17.) 

(h'i  r!'o  investigate  and  approve  all  contracts  for  power  made  by  a  licensee  wrhich 
will  extend  beyond  the  termination  of  the  license.  (Sec.  22,  p.  43,  line  2.) 

(?')  To  provide  for  the  proportionate  distribution  of  annual  costs  of  headwater 
improvements  between  owner  and  licensees  benefited  thereby.  (See  lOf,  p.  25, 
line  4.) 

(./)  To  assess  against  all  licensees  benefited  the  annual  cost  of  any  headwater 
improvement  constructed  by  the  United  States.  (See  lOf,  p.  25,  line  8.) 

(k)  To  prescribe  rules  for  "and  to  fix  annual  license  charges,  and  to  determine  the 
relation  of  such  charges  to  prices  to  consumers.  (See  IGe,  p.  23,  line  6.) 

To  put  the  above  provisions  into  effect  the  commission  is  authorized: 

(/)  To  make  rules  and  regulations  for  administration  of  the  act.     (See  46,  p.  13r 
line  24.) 
and  is  required : 

(m)  To  submit  annually  to  Congress  on  or  before  the  first  Monday  in  December  a. 
classified  report  showing  permits  and  licenses  issued,  the  parties  thereto,  the  term 
thereof  and  the  moneys  received.     (See  4c,  p.  9,  line  5.) 

1  References  are  to  section,  page,  and  line,  respectively,  of  the  pamphlet  print  of  the  act. 


PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       93 

Of  the  13  items  above  listed,  five,  namely,  (b),  (e),  (f),  (k),  and  (1),  have  up  to  the 
present  been  performed  by  the  Departments  of  Agriculture  and  Interior  in  connection 
with  their  administration  of  water  powers  upon  public  lands  and  reservations,  Au- 
thorization for  power  developments  upon  navigable  rivers  has  heretofore  been  granted 
•only  by  specific  act  of  Congress;  and  since  none  has  been  so  granted  in  recent  years, 
none  of  the  items  listed  has  been  performed,  by  the  "War  Department.  The  eight  re- 
maining items  comprise  administrative  duties  in  addition  to  anything  required  by 
previously  existing  law  or  hitherto  performed  by  any  one  of  three  departments.  Of  these 
eight  items,  (a)  notification  and  publication  of  applications  and  (c)  field  investigations 
can  be  performed  through  the  field  personnel  and  field  offices  of  the  individual  depart- 
ments. Items  (g),  (h),  (i),  and  (j)  will  require  action  by  the  commission.  Hence, 
of  the  13  items  above  listed  all  but  the  first  three  must  be  performed  by  the  commis- 
sion itself  if  duplication  of  work  is  to  be  avoided  and  if  the  provisions  of  the  act  are 
to  be  effectively  carried  out. 

2.  Design,  construction,  and  operation  of  project  works. — The  commission  has  authority 
to  pass  upon  the  general  scheme  of  development  of  power  sites,  upon  the  plans  and 
specifications  of  the  works,  and  upon  certain  features  of  maintenance  and  operation 
of  project  works;  and  it  its  is  duty: 

(a)  To  require  that  "the  project  adopted  '    shall  be  such  as  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  commission  will  be  best  adapted  to  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  improve- 
ment and  utilization,"  and  that  plans  be  modified  when  necessary  to  secure  such 
scheme.     (See  lOa,  p.  20,  line  10.) 

(b)  To  approve  maps,  plans  and  specifications  of  project  works.     (Sec.  9,  p.  19, 
line  19.) 

(c)  To  pass  upon  and  approve  prior  to  construction  any  substantial  alteration  in 
project  plans.     (Sec.  lOb,  p.  20,  line  19.) 

(d)  To  require  that  project  works  be  properly  maintained  and  kept  in  efficient 
operating  conditions.     (Sec.  ICc,  p.  21,  line  3.) 

(e)  To  prescribe  the  time  within  which  projects  shall  be  begun  and  completed. 
(Sec.  13,  p.  29,  line  11.) 

(/)  To  keep  in  touch  with  conditions  of  the  power  market  tributary  to  every  de- 
velopment in  order  to  require  extensions  as  rapidly  as  conditions  warrant.  (Sec.  13, 
p.  29,  line  17.) 

(g)  To  prescribe  rules  and  regulations  for  the  protection  of  life,  health,  and  prop- 
erty in  connection  with  the  construction  or  operation  of  project  works  by  licensees. 
(Sec.  lOc,  p.  21,  line  10.) 

Of  the  seven  items  under  the  above  heading  one  only,  item  (e),  has  hitherto  been 
performed  by  any  of  the  three  departments  to  the  degree  contemplated  by  the  act. 
Six  of  the  seven  items,  therefore,  involve  essentially  new  duties  of  which  all  but 
item  (d),  and  possibly  to  some  extent  item  («),  will  require  action  by  the  commission 
itself.  Item  )d)  could  be  handled  by  the  field  forces  of  the  several  departments 
after  general  regulations  concerning  this  item  have  been  prepared  by  the  commission. 
The  same  would  bp  true,  within  limits,  of  item  (c). 

The  most  important  item  under  this  heading  is  (a),  the  preparation  of  a  compre- 
hensive plan  of  development  in  connection  with  each  power  project,  one  which,  as 
required  by  the  act,  shall  take  into  account  full  utilization  of  the  stream  for  "purposes 
of  navigation,  water-power  development,  and  of  other  beneficial  public  uses."  The 
investigations  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  such  plan  could  not  be  made  by  the 
three  departments  without  substantial  increase  in  their  present  force.  The  commis- 
sion can  not  do  it  without  adequate  personnel  of  its  own;  hence  until  provision  is 
made  for  such  personnel  the  commission  must  either  suspend  action  indefinitely 
upon  the  greater  part  of  the  applications  before  it  or  ignore  the  plain  requirements  of 
the  law. 

It  will  also  be  necessary  to  make  a  detailed  examination  of  the  maps  and  plans 
submitted.  This  will  require  the  service  of  experts  in  construction  and  in  mechanical 
and  electrical  engineering.  The  design  proposed  may  effect  in  material  degree  the  cost 
of  the  project.  The  same  is  true  of  the  methods  of  construction.  Unless,  therefore, 
wholly  uncontrolled  prospective  liabilities  are  to  be  set  up  against  the  United  States 
on  account  of  these  projects,  it  will  be  necessary  not  only  to  give  the  most  complete 
review  of  the  project  plans  but  also  to  inspect  the  work  while  under  construction. 

3.  Regulation  of  financial  operations. — Under  the  provisions  of  the  act  the  commis- 
sion has  authority 'and  it  is  its  duty: 

(a)  To  prescribe  a  svstem  of  accounting  for  licenses.     (See  4f,  p.  11,  line  24.) 
(&)  To  require  the  submission  of  financial  statements  and  reports.     (See  4f,  p.  12, 
Iine2.) 

(c)  To  prescribe  rules  for  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  depreciation  re- 
serves by  licenses.  (Sea  lOc,  p.  21,  line.  7.) 


94        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT, 

(d)  To  devise  principles  for  the  proper  apportionment  of  surplus  earnings  to  amorti- 
zation reserves.     (Fee  lOb,  p.  21,  line  19.) 

(e)  To  regulate,  under  certain  conditions,  the  amount  and  character  of  securities 
which  mav  be  issued  for  the  financing  of  power  proiects;  (See  19,  f.  29,  line  14;   See 
20,  p.  40,  line  19),  and  to  hold  hearings  in  connection  therewith.     (See  4g,  p    13 
line!.)  , 

All  of  the  items  under  the  above  heading  arc  new  legislation,  involve  a  performance 
of  duties  not  hitherto  undertaken  by  any  of  the  three  departments,  and  require 
action  bv  the  commission  itself. 

Item  (a]  the  formulation  of  a  system  of  accounting,  is  a  duty  that  can  be  performed 
only  by  technical  experts.  It  will  require  detailed  study  of  such  accounting  systems 
of  the  several  States  as  have  been  provided  bv  statute  or  by  action  of  public-service 
commissions,  before  any  accounting  system  to  be  made  generally  applicable  can  prop- 
erly be  devised.  The  accounting  system  and  its  administration  are  fundamental  in  the 
operation  of  the  act.  K  very  dollar  charged  to  the  investment  account  of  the  licensee  is  a 
potential  liability  of  the  United  States;  for  the  United  States  may  take  over  the  proper- 
ties at  the  license  termination  and  if  it  does  so,  the  price  is  determined  by  the  amount 
which  the  commission  has  permitled  to  !»<>  entered  upon  tho  books  of 'the  licensee. 
Tliis  amount  can  be  controlled  onlv  bv  requiring  periodical  reports  and  by  making 
necessary  inspection  and  audit.  The  ncc'Hintin-j:  svsf"in  can  not  be  prepared  or 
admi:iist»-"d  bv  th >  individual  departments,  but  it  involves  work  of  a  character  \vhich 
must  b  >  d-ui"  bv  the  commission  itself,  if  done  at  all. 

I  !•••!!  (e\  the  n -.MI l.i' ion  of  th"  Issuance  of  securities,  will  be  undertaken  onlv  in  (hose 
i  ierne  !  Iris  provided  i!  •  iih  authoritv  to  act.     If 

and  when  t'i"  co  i)  oission  d  i  ial  >  •  ihnical   i'-.v^iiuMlions  \vill  b->  required 

and  h"a--in'_'s  nin^t   I.  •  li  •'«!.     Tiiis  can  u  >:   be  <1  me  by  th"  individual  d"parhi:ents, 
first,  becau       I  mid  have  no  authoritv  and  second,  because  th  >y  have  not  the 

qualified  person r id.      I'ntil,  therefore.  authovit\    is  iriveu  to  employ  the  nec< 
experts,  report "rs.  etc.,  1hi<  provision  of  the  act  must  remain  inoperative. 

4.  Regulation  of  rates  a/i/l  Hcrricr. — Jurisdiction  over  the  regulation  of  rates  and 
service  is  conferred  upon  the  commission: 

(a)  In  iutrasfate  business  whenever  tin-  State  has  not  provided  an  agency  with 
power  of  regulation.  (Sec.  li).  p.  39.  line  14.) 

(6)  In  interstate  lmsin«-.s  win-never  the  States  concerned  have  not  the  power  to 
act  individually  or  can  n«.t  reach  mutual  agreement.  (Sec.  L'O.  p.  40,  line  19.) 

The  above  item-  contemplate  entirely  new  activities  never  heretofore  exercised 
by  the  Federal  (io\ eminent .  However,  afl  in  Hie  case  of  Item  4  (e)  the  commission 
will  be  required  to  act  only  when  the  State*  concerned  are  unable  to  exercise  the  pro- 
posed powers  thcnis"lves. 

5.  Valuation  »fl'r»i><r!  ..s-e«. — Itis  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  act  that 
valuations  for  the  purpose  of  rate  making,  or  of  purchase  at  the  termination  of  the 
license  period,  shall  be  based  upon  the  net  investment  in  the  property  and  that  this 
amount  shall  he   determined    currently  either  through  the  system  of  accounting  or 
through  physical  valuation.     For  this  purpose  it  is  the  duty  of  the  commission: 

(a)  To  require  the  riling  of  statements  showing  the  cost  of  construction  of  project 
works  and  the  price  paid  tor  water  rights,  rights  of  way.  lauds,  and  interests  in  lands. 
(Sec.  4a.  p.  8,  line  — ). 

(6)  To  make  valuation  of  all  projects  brought  under  license  which  have  been 
constructed  in  whole  or  in  part  prior  to  application  for  license.  (Sec.  23,  p.  44,  line  6.) 

(c)  To  maice  valuation  in  case  of  condemnation  of  the  properties  of  a  licensee  by 
the  United  States.     (Sec.  14,  p.  32.  line  8.) 

(d)  To  determine  the  net  investment  and  severance  damages  in  the  event  that 
properties  of  a  licensee  are  taken  over  by  the  United  States  at  the  termination  of  n 
license  period.     (Sec.  14.  p.  31,  line  17.) 

All  of  the  above  items  are  new  legislation  and  all  will  require  the  personal  attention 
and  action  of  the  commission  or  its  staff. 

The  valuation  of  public  utility  properties  is  a  highly  technical  procedure  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  legal,  accounting,  financial,  and  engineering  problems  involoved. 
None  of  the  three  departments  have  ever  undertaken  work  of  this  character  or  have 
a  personnel  with  training  or  experience  along  this  line. 

The  act  requires  (sec.  25,  p  45,  line  23)  ''that  when  application  is  made  for  license 
for  a  project  or  projects  already  constructed,  the  fair  value  of  such  project 
or  projects  "  shall  be  determined,  and  that  such  fair  value  shall  thereupon  be  taken  as 
the  ''net  investment"  of  the  license  as  of  the  date  of  determination.  There  are  scores 
of  large  operating  projects  with  aggregate  values  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  for 
which  application  for  license  will  soon  be  filed.  The  valuation  of  these  projects  will 
require  a  considerable  force  and  will  be  a  matter  of  several  years  work  even  if  started 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       95 

at  once.  The  three  departments  could  not  do  this  work  and  perform  their  other  func- 
tions even  if  they  contained  a  personnel  qualified  to  conduct  proceedings  of  this  nature. 
Unless  and  until  the  commission  has  authority  to  employ  a  personnel  for  this  work  it 
must  remain  undone  and  licenses  must  be  denied  to  all  such  applicants,  although 
they  are  entitled  under  the  act  to  receive  them. 

6.  General  investigations. — In  addition  to  gts  duties  of  general  administration  and 
regulation  of  water-power  developments  the  commission  is  authorized,  or  the  perform- 
ance of  certain  of  its  duties  will  require  it,  to  undertake  general  investigations  and  to 
collect  and  record  data  concerning: 

(a)  The  utilization  of  the  water  resources  of  any  region  to  be  develop" ed.  (Sec.  4a, 
p.  7,  line  16.) 

(6)  The  water-power  industry  and  its  relation  to  other  industries  and  to  interstate 
or  foreign  commerce.  (Sec.  4a,  p.  7,  line  17.) 

(c)  The  location,  capacity,  development  costs,  and  relation  to  market  of  power 
sites.  (Sec.  4a,  p.  7,  line  19.) 

(d}  Whether  the  power  from  Government  dams  can  be  advantageously  used  by  the 
United  States  for  its  public  purposes  and  what  is  the  fair  value  of  such 'power.  "(See. 
4a,  p.  7,  line  21.) 

(e)  Lands  of  the  United  States  reserved  as  power  sites  to  determine  whether  they 
may  be  opened  to  entry  subject  to  a  reservation  of  the  power  rights  of  the  United 
States.  (Sec.  24,  p.  46,'line  l9.) 

(/)  Deterioration  of  structures  and  equipment  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  rates 
of  depreciation  and  amount  of  annual  depreciation  reserves.  (Sec.  lOc,  p.  21,  line  7.) 

In  connection  with  such  investigation  the  commission  is  authorized: 

(gr)  To  hold  hearings  and  to  require  the  attendance  of  witnesses  and  the  production 
of  evidence.  (Sec.  4g,  p.  13,  line  2.) 

(h)  To  make  public  from  time  to  time  the  information  secured  and  to  provide  for 
the  publication  of  its  reports  and  investigations.  (Sec.  4c,  p.  9,  line  1.) 

(i)  To  cooperate  with  State  and  National  Governments  in  its  general  power  investi- 
gations. (Sec.  4b.  p.  8,  line  16.) 

Of  the  nine  items  under  the  above  heading  only  one,  itenr(e),  has  hitherto  been 
undertaken  by  either  of  the  three  departments  to  the  extent  contemplated  by  the 
act,  and  even  investigations  covered  by  item  (e)  have  been  conducted  only  occasion- 
ally. 

For  the  investigations  comprised  under  items  (a),  (6),  (c),  and  (c?),  authority  is  given 
in  section  4  (6)  to  request  temporary  detail  of  experts  or  other  officers  from  the  various 
Executive  Departments  and  agencies  of  the  Government.  It  is  manifest,  however, 
that  investigations  can  be  conducted  by  this  means  only  if  the  several  departments 
and  agencies  have  a  personnel  qualified  to  do  the  work  and  to  the  extent  that  such 
personnel  can  be  detached  from  their  other  duties  for  this  purpose.  At  the  best  this 
procedure  would  involve  a  constantly  shifting  personnel — an  unsatisfactory,  uneco- 
nomic and  inefficient  method  of  doing  business.  These  investigstions  can  never  be 
properly  conducted  until  the  commission  has  a  force  itself  or  there  are  in  one  or  more 
of  the  three  departments  a  force  permanently  assigned  to  the  work  who  can  be  either 
detailed  to  the  commission  or  retained  in  the  department  under  the  supervision  of 
the  commission. 

The  adequate  determination  of  depreciation  and  the  establishment  of  depreciation 
reserves  is  a  far  more  important  matter  in  connection  with  the  Federal  control  of  water 
powers  under  the  act  than  in  connection  with  similar  control  under  State  legislation. 
While  State  and  Federal  control  will  deal  equally  with  these  matters  as  regards  ade- 
quate maintenance  and  operating  efficiency  of"  power  projects,  only  the  Federal 
Government  is  concerned  in  the  relation  of  depreciation  reserves  to  the  purchase  price 
of  the  property,  for  under  the  act  all  such  accumulated  reserves  are  to  be  deducted 
from  original  cost  of  the  properties  are  taken  over  at  the  license  termination.  It  is  of 
great  importance,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  depreciation,  or  deterioration,  of 
structures  and  equipment  be  thoroughly  investigated  and  that  a  thoroughly  considered 
scheme  of  establishing  and  maintaining  reserves  be  adopted. 

The  extent  to  which  the  commission  can  cooperate  withthe  State  of  National  Govern- 
ments as  contemplated  by  item  (i)  will  depend  entirely  upon  the  means  at  its  disposal 
for  such  purpose. 

7.  Special  investigations. — In  addition  to  the  general  investigations  which  the  com- 
mission is  authorized  to  undertake  it  is  required  to  make  special  investigation  and  to 
submit  to  Congress: 

(a)  Reports  in  all  cases  where  it  finds  that  a  Government  dam  may  advantageously 
be  used  by  the  United  States  for  public  purposes  in  addition  to  navigation.  (Sec. 
4d,  p.  10,  line  25.) 


98        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

(/>)  The  results  of  its  examination  and  surveys,  together  with  plans  and  cost  esti- 
mates, in  connection  with  any  project  which  it  believes  should  be  undertaken  by  the 
United  States.  (Sec.  7,  p.  16,  line  3.) 

(c)  Reports  with  cost  estimates  on  all  projects  on  navigable  streams  in  which  it 
appears  that  the  construction  of  suitable  navigation  structures  can  not  be  under- 
taken by  the  applicant.     (Sec.  12,  p.  29,  Jine  4.) 

(d)  On  or  before  January  1,  -1921,  a  report  on  "the  cost  and,  in  detail,  the  economic 
value"  of  the  Great  Falls  power  project,  and  "plans  and  estimates  of  cost  necessary 
to  secure  an  increased  and  adequate  water  supply  for  the  District  of  Columbia." 
(Sec.  7,  p.  18.  line  3.) 

(e)  The    C3mmission  would  also  be  required  to  make  special  investigations  and 
assist  in  the  conduct  of  legal  proceedings  brought  for  cancellation  of  licenses  or  for 
requiring  specific  performance  of  the  provisions  of  a  licensee  or  of  the  act.     (Sec.  25, 
p.  48,  line  14.) 

The  five  items  listed  above  are  essentially  new  legislation,  involving  duties  which 
either  are  not  at  present  performed  by  any  of  the  three  departments,  or  which  are 
in  addition  to  similar  duties  now  performed .  The  War  Department,  through  the 
Board  of  Engiiwrs  for  Tlivers  and  Harbors,  makes  reports  to  Congress  on  river  im- 
provements. These  improvements  occasionally  provide  opportunities  for  power 
developments  which  are  reported  upon  by  the  engineers  who  make  the  examination, 
but  the  board  probably  seldom,  if  ever,  has  made  reports  of  the  nature  required 
under  it";ns  (a)  mid  (h)  and  only  occasionally  und"r  item  ('•).  Several  reports  have 
hitherto  been  made  on  the  mutters  involved  in  item  (</).  The  act,  however,  calls 
for  new  information  in  addition  to  a  review  of  previous  ivtnvts. 

In  any  case  that  ni-.iv  avis  •  inquiring  legal  proceedings  looking  toward  cancella- 
tion of  a  license  or  enforcement  of  its  provisions,  it  would  !><•  the  duty  of  the  com- 
mission to  make  ill-  engineering  ami  oih.'r  i<>chnical  investigations  necessary  and  to 
act  as  adviser  to  the  Attorp'-v  ( icp.-ral.  While  the  conduct  of  investigations  and  the 
preparation  of  reports  could  be  handled  by  the  individual  departments,  such  (natters 
would  also  involve  a  considerable  amount  of  work  on  the  part  of  members  of  the 
commission  or  of  their  staff. 

Of  the  45  special  functions  or  duties  required  of  the  c  M  under  the  act  and 

as  listed  in  tin-  preceding  pages,  only  six  items,  name!  .  .  ,/',>.  (/•),  and  (/),  and 

2  (e)  are  no-.v  being  p<  rformed  l>y  the  three  departments,  .'sine  items,  namely.  2  (a), 
(6),  and  (n;  <>  (a),  (o),  and  (c);  ami  7  (a)  and  (c)  involve  duiies  similar  in  kind,  but 
additional  in  amount,  to  duties  now  being  performed  l»v  the  three  departments. 
The  remaining  :'.()  items  are  entirely  now  d  Hies  not  hitherto  performed  by  any  of 
the  executive  departments. 


MEMORANDUM   OF   ORGANIZATION    APPROVE!)    BY   COMMISSION    AT   ITS    MEETING    OF  ,'TJLY 

28,  1920. 


Before  the  Federal  Power  Commission  can  undertake  the  duties  placed  upon  it  , 
the  Federal  water  power  act  it  will  be  necessary  for  it  to  establish  a  staff  organization 
through  which  it  can  not  only  direct  the  work  performed  by  its  own  employees,  or 
those  assigned  to  it  by  the  three  departments,  but  also  correlate  the  work  performed 
for  it  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  by  the  departments  themselves.  Effective 
administration  of  the  act  requires  a  form  of  organization  which  will  fix  definitely 
both  authority  and  responsibility. 

The  work  of  the  commission  may  be  divided  into  the  following  activities:  Engi- 
neering, accounting,  statistical,  regulatory,  licensing,  legal,  operation. 

These  several  divisions  are  considered  in  detail  below. 

Engineering. — This  is  the  most  important  division  of  the  work  of  the  commission, 
involving  the  following  duties  either  authorized  or  required  by  the  act: 

General  investigation  of  ele.ctric-power  industry. 

General  investigation  of  water-power  sites,  and  estimates  of  cost  of  development. 

Estimates  of  amount  and  value  of  power  available  at  Government  dams. 

Examinations,  cost  estimates,  and  reports  to  Congress  on  projects  recommended  for 
construction -by  the  United  States. 

Examinations,  cost  estimates,  and  reports  to  Congress  on  projects  for  which  it  is 
recommended  that  the  cost  of  navigation  facilities  be  supplied  in  whole  at  in  part 
by  the  United  States. 

Preparation  of  comprehensive  plans  for  development  for  all  purposes  of  streams 
and  stream  systems  upon  which  applications  for  licenses  are  made. 

Passing  upon  construction  plans  proposed  by  licensees. 

Physical  valuation  of  properties  in  rate  making  proceedings  and  when  existing 
plants  are  brought  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 


: 

r» 


PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       97 

Determination  of  necessary  repairs  required  for  maintaining  projects  in  effective 
operating  condition. 

Determination  of  adequate  depreciation  reserves  upon  properties. 

Determination  of  operating  rules  necessary  for  protection  of  life,  health,  and  prop- 
erty. 

The  act  provides  for  the  detail  of  an  officej  from  the  United  States  Engineer  Corps 
to  serve  the  commission  as  engineer  officer.  The  organization  of  this  division  of  the 
work  should  be  undertaken  at  an  early  date,  since  action  will  be  necessary  on  the 
many  applications  which  have  already  been  filed. 

Accounting  and  statistical. — For  the  present  at  least  these  two  divisions  should  be 
combined.  The  most  important  item  of  work  will  be  the  formulation  of  a  system  of 
accounting.  This  will  involve  a  critical  review  of  the  accounting  systems  of  the  sev- 
eral States  and  the  adaptation  of  the  commission's  system  as  far  as  practicable  to  those 
of  the  States.  The  head  of  this  division  must  be  a  man  who  has  had  a  thorough  train- 
ing in  the  theory  and  practice  of  public  utility  accounting.  It  is  work  that  calls  for 
technical  qualifications  of  a  high  order.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  three  departments 
have  anyone  with  the  training  or  experience  which  would  qualify  him  to  perform 
this  work  It  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  either  to  secure  the  temporary  detail  of 
some  qualified  person  from  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  under  the  provisions 
of  section  4  (6)  of  the  act,  or  to  employ  someone  from  outside  the  Government  service. 
The  accounting  system  and  its  operation  is  a  fundamental  feature  of  the  act  and  will 
be  involved  in  the  issuance  of  every  license,  the  operation  of  every  project,  and  in  the 
action  taken  toward  regulation  of  rates  and  securities.  This  division  should,  therefore , 
be  organized  at  the  earliest  practicable  date. 

P'  The  general  statistical  work  will  be  a  matter  of  development.  Information  con- 
cerning water-power  resources,  utilization  and  distribution  are  very  meager  and 
unreliable.  ^  The  commission  should  endeavor  to  develop  this  branch  of  its  activities 
in  cooperation  with  the  industry,  with  the  State  public  utility  commissions,  and 
with  other  Government  agencies. 

Regulatory. — This  division  covers  mainly  rate,  service,  and  securities  regulation. 
Since  none  of  these  matters  are  likelv  to  be  brought  up  immediately,  the  organization 
of  this  division  may  be  omitted  for  the  present. 

Licensing  and  legal. — This  division  will  be  concerned  with  all  legal  matters  affecting 
the  work  of  the  commission,  and  should  have  charge  of  the  preparation  of  all  permits 
and  licenses  and  of  their  extension,  transfer,  termination,  and  revocation.  Many 
important  legal  questions  will  arise  when  the  commission  starts  operations.  Among 
these  will  be:  Interpretation  of  the  act;  of  the  relations  between  the  authority  of  the 
commission  and  that  of  the  several  States,  and  of  the  bearing  of  State  laws,  such  as 

J.T "__  _  _  *       1     j  <•  1      •  1  j    •  /»  /»  IT- 


in  the  conduct  of  judicial  proceedings  in  connection  with  revocations,  and  particu- 
larly in  connection  with  valuation  of  properties;  and  decisions  on  international  ques- 
tions such  as  those  involved  in  the  settlement  of  the  Niagara  situation  and  in  the 
issuance  of  licenses  for  developments  on  the  St.  Lawrence  and  other  boundary  streams. 
For  these  purposes  knowledge  of  an  experience  in  public  land  law,  the  law  of  waters, 
public  utility  statutes,  and  Government  practice  and  procedure,  is  highly  desirable. 

A  correct  handling  of  the  various  legal  problems  as  they  first  arise  will  be  of  great 
importance  in  establishing  the  work  of  the  commission  on  a  sound  basis.  The  com- 
mission therefore  should  either  have  its  own  chief  counsel  or  secure  the  assignment  of 
an  Assistant  Attorney  General  in  that  capacity. 

Operation. — This  division  covers  the  details  of  office  operations  such  as  care  of 
quarters;  procurement  of  equipment,  letterheads,  seal,  and  general  supplies;  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  files,  records,  and  library;  preparation  of  annual  re- 
ports; handling  of  details  of  advertisement  of  applications,  and  of  appointment, 
transfer,  etc.,  of  personnel;  and  general  control  over  the  messenger,  clerical,  and 
stenographic  force. 

The  act  requires  that  before  granting  any  application,  public  notice  shall  be  given 
in  writing  to  any  State  or  municipality  likely  to  be  interested,  and  also  that  notice 
shall  be  published  "for  eight  weeks  in  a  daily  or  weekly  newspaper  published  in  the 
county  or  counties"  in  which  the  project  i$  situated.  It  is  important,  therefore,  that 
a  procedure  be  arranged  for  giving  and  publishing  such  notices  at  an  early  date  so  that 
the  commission  may  be  in  a  position  to  give  prompt  consideration  to  the  applications 
already  before  it  as  well  as  to  those  which  may  be  filed  hereafter.  This  division  should 
accordingly  be  organized  immediately  with  a  chief  clerk  in  charge. 

On  account  of  the  fact  that  the  commission  will  perform  a  part  of  its  functions 
through  the  personnel  of  the  three  departments,  it  is  important  that  the  chief  clerk 

29414—21 7 


98        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

be  thoroughly  familiar  with  departmental  procedure  and  practice  and  have  had 
several  years'  experience  in  work  of  the  character  which  he  would  perform  for  the 
commission. 

Field  offices. — Certain  of  the  activities  of  the  com  Emission  can  be  handled  through 
the  field  forces  of  the  three  departments.  It  would  be  desirable  that  certain  offices  be 
designated  to  receive  applications,  give  the  public  notice,  make  the  advertisements 
required  by  the  act,  and  handle  the  notifications  to  the  General  Land  Office.  Certain 
of  the  field  officers  should  also  be  designated  as  field  representatives  of  the  commission 
in  securing  information  and  in  making  examinations  and  reports  upon  applications. 

Recommendations. — It  is  recommended  that  the  initial  organization  of  the  com- 
mission be  in  four  divisions,  under  the  general  direction  of  the  executive  secretary, 
viz,  engineering,  accounting,  legal,  and  operation,  under  the  immediate  charge, 
respectively,  of  a  chief  engineer,  chief  accountant,  chief  counsel,  and  chief  clerk, 
with  a  distribution  of  duties  as  indicated  on  the  attached  chart;  that  immediate  steps 
be  taken  to  secure  the  assignment  of  a  chief  clerk  and  a  chief  counsel ;  that  the  attached 
orders  defining  the  duties  of  the  executive  secretary  and  engineer  officer  be  approved; 
and  that  the  plan  of  utilizing  field  offices  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  the  Geological 
Survey,  and  the  Forest  Service  to  represent  the  commission  in  certain  matters,  be 
approved  in  principle,  leaving  the  details  of  the  application  of  the  plan  to  be  worked 
out  later. 

Orders,  No.  1: 

By  authority  of  section  2  of  the  Federal  water  power  act  approved  June  10,  1920 
(public  280),  it  is  ordered  that  the  executive  secretary  of  the  Federal  Power  Commis- 
sion shall  be  authorized  to  draw  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  all  warrants  for 
expenditures  out  of  appropriations  heretofore  or  hereafter  made  for  the  use  of  said 
Commission. 

Done  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  this  31st  day  of  July,  1920. 

NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  Chairman. 

Attest: 

O.  C.  MERRILL,  Executive  Secretary. 

DUTIES    OF    EXECUTIVE    SECRETARY. 

By  authority  of  section  2  of  the  Federal  water  power  act,  approved  June  10,  1920 
(Public,  280),  it  is  ordered  that  the  duties  of  the  executive  secretary  of  the  Federal 
Power  Commission,  to  be  performed  under  the  general  direction  of  the  commission, 
shall  be  as  follows: 

1 .  To  administer  the  act  as  executive  officer  of  the  commission  and  to  see  that  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  commission  are  carreid  out. 

2.  To  supervise  under  the  act  and  regulations  all  personnel  that  may  be  employed 
by  or  detailed  or  assigned  to  the  commission,  and  to  prescribe  their  duties  within  the 
limits  of  the  act  and  regulations. 

3.  To  have  general  administrative  charge  of  the  conduct,  preparation,  and  publi- 
cation of  all  investigations,  valuations,  hearings,  and  reports  authorized  or  required 
by  the  act,  unless  otherwise  provided  by  the  commission. 

4.  To  approve  vouchers  for  expenditures  incurred  on  account  of  salaries  or  expenses 
payable  under  the  provisions  of  the  act. 

5.  To  administer  oaths  and  affirmations,  examine  witnesses,  and  receive  evidences. 
G.  To  formulate,  authenticate,  and  record  the  findings  of  the  commission  provided 

for  in  section  4  (d),  7,  21,  and  23  of  the  act,  or  other  sections  of  the  act,  unless  otherwise 
provided  by  the  commission. 

7.  To  attest  all  orders,  decisions,  or  regulations  of  the  commission,  and  to  certify 
under  seal  copies  of  such  orders,  decisions,  or  regulations,  or  of  any  finding,  report, 
map,  plan,  or  other  record  of  the  commission,  whenever  required  for  any  lawful  purpose. 

8.  To  execute  and  issue  permits  and  licenses  under  the  seal  of  the  commission. 

9.  To  approve  under  the  seal  of  the  commission  voluntary  transfers  of  licenses,  or  of 
the  rights  thereunder  granted. 

10.  To  cancel  or  terminate  permits  or  licenses  under  the  conditions  prescribed  in 
section  5  and  in  section  13  of  the  act,  respectively. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  this  23d  day  of  August,  1920. 

NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  Chairman. 
Attest: 

O.  C.  MERRILL,  Executive  Secretary. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       99 

DUTIES    OF   ENGINEER    OFFICER. 

By  authority  of  section  2  of  the  Federal  water  power  act,  approved  June  10,  1920 
(Public,  280),  it  is  ordered  that  Jhe  duties  of  the  engineer  officer  of  the  Federal  Power 
Commission,  to  be  performed  under  the  general  direction  of  the  executive  secretary, 
shall  be  to  act  as  chief  engineer  of  the  commission  and  to  have  general  charge  of  its 
engineering  activities. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  this  23d  day  of  August,  1920. 

NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  Chairman. 
Attest: 

O.  C.  MERRILL,  Executive  Secretary. 


By  authority  of  section  2  of  the  Federal  water  power  act,  approved  June  10,  1920 
(Public,  280,  66th  Cong.),  and  pursuant  to  the  action  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission 
at  its  meeting  of  September  3,  1920,  it  is  hereby  ordered  that  the  duties  of  the  execu- 
tive secretary  of  the  commission  shall  include,  in  addition  to  those  prescribed  in 
Orders  No.  2,  dated  August  23,  1920,  the  following,  namely:  To  authorize  all  advertis- 
ing in  newspapers  required  by  section  4  (d)  and  section  4  (e)  of  the  act,  and  such  other 
advertising  as  may  be  required  in  the  administration  of  the  act. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  this  3d  day  of  September,  1920. 

NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  Chairman. 

Attest: 

O.  C.  MERRILL,  Executive  Secretary, 


Estimates  of  appropriations  required  for  the  service  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1922. 

FEDERAL   POWER   COMMISSION. 

Salaries: 

Executive  secretary  .(act  June  10,  1920,  vol.  41,  p.  1063,  sees.  1-30;  sub- 
mitted)   $5,  000 

Chief  valuation  engineer,  $7,500;  civil  engineers— one  $6,000,  one  $3,300, 
one  $2,400,  two  at  $2,100  each;  two  hydraulic  engineers,  at  $3,300  each; 
electrical  engineer,  $2,400;  mechanical  engineer,  $2,400;  draftsmen — 
one  $2,000,  two  at  $1,500  each;  chief  accountant,  $7,500;  accountants — 
two  at  $3,300  each;  assistant  attorneys — two  at  $3,600  each;  chief  clerk, 
$3,500;  librarian,  $2,700;  clerks— one  $2,000,  three  of  class  four  (sub- 
mitted)    74, 700 

General  expenses: 

For  every  expenditure  requisite  for  and  incident  to  the  authorized  work 
of  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  including  personal  services  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  the  field,  and  including  not  to  exceed  $2,000 
•for  necessary  books,  reports,  periodicals,  and  directories  (submitted). .  297,  365 


Employees. 

Rate  per 
annum. 

Estimated. 
1922. 

Valuation  engineer  

$4,500 

Number. 
1 

Mechanical  engineer  

3  300 

1 

Do 

2  400 

1 

Electrical  engineer 

3  3CO 

1 

2*400 

1 

Civil  engineers 

3  300 

5 

Do... 

2'  400 

6 

Do 

2  100 

6 

Civil  engineers,  junior  

1.800 

17 

Hydraulic  engineers  

2  400 

2 

Engineering  aids 

1  500 

12 

D  raftsmen 

1  500 

g 

Accountant 

4  500 

1 

Do 

3  300 

\ccountants 

2  400 

2 

Do  .. 

l'800 

•    3 

Assistant  attorney 

4  500 

1 

Assistant  attorneys.  .  . 

2.400 

4 

100     PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


Employees. 

Rate  per 
annum. 

Estimated, 
1922. 

» 

Clerks 

$1  800 

Number. 
4 

Do... 

1,600 

9 

Do 

1  400 

23 

Messengers  .  .  . 

8-10 

2 

Do 

720 

2 

One-fourth   deducted   because  of  estimated   average   nine 
months'  service  during  fiscal  rear  

213,820 
53,455 

113 

Salaries 

$160  36-' 

OTHER  OBJECTS  OF  EXPENDITURE. 

Expense  of  making  field  investigations,  including  travel  and 
subsistence,  and  the  outfitting  and  maintenance  of  field  par- 
ties   

116,000 

Books,  periodicals,  reports,  and  directories  

2  000 

:  isine,  pursuant  to  the  requirements  of  section  4  (e)  of 
the  Federal  water  power  act        

10  000 

Furniture  and  o'liiipinont 

5  000 

Stationery  

1,200 

Telephone  and  tele°raph 

1  100 

Miscellaneous 

1  700 

Total 

297  365 

Investigations  by  other  departments: 

I*  For  reimbursing  other  executive  departments  and  agencies  of  the  Gov- 
ff  •    eminent  for  expenses  of  investigations  requested  by  the  commission 

(act  June  10,  1920,  vol.  41,  pp.  1063,  1065,  sees.  2,  4-b;  submitted). . . .  $100,  000 
Printing  and  binding: 

For  printing  and  binding  for  the  Federal  Power  Commission  (submitted) .        5,  000 

Total 482,  065 

Amount  appropriated  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1921 100,  000 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       101 


11 

C8       03 


I|g«gl|P*st 

llllll'i'slla^ 


liSllislsilg.* 

|Sf&E(  £Q  ^ 


I5S  as 


rt4J 
-  So 


3         3  .3  O  Cfl  Pi  03 


I* 


K 


1*8 
«••« 


1         : 
I        i 


000 


1 


Is 

pqi-n 

^b 

p 

3  2 


ir 

• 


S  F 
Cali 


a  . 

s^ 

si 

si 

02^ 

««  o 
O  <y 

S2 

O 


ijajs 

°F.li 

^e3MCQ  = 


C. 

ew  ' 

d  Si 


o?^^  llflS       | 

iipi^  "iii  s  ^  i 

|pw|g"  III!  i  s  g 

^il^al   o  .|s   «>,s  ^ 

£^^^25       S||«       lg|       03 
3^^        03MO        S'^m         O<-Jc3        o> 

O          OPnO          ^tfWQ 


ll      II 

op,          eco 


Qd 


-^     «      8       &  o      | 

5-  fl  ^fi    SS 

!?     i  2 


S  -s 


00 


SS 


(M  CO 


t>-         00         O5  O         i-( 


102        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


3  -g 


•33^  •£ 

Ed«  s 

'3  «.£§  o 

115  1 


sf     5f 

I  !fi 


I      ~-2 

i     ^ 
|X'|2 

i*.6- 

-g^fl' 
•33** 


12 

«    ^ 


s        s 


Z»  PS  ^        !y;c/D  ^ 

' 


2  w^       -^  w 

s-sS-s^  S^|  f^l  *?  fea 

!i-M?    .ILi^  1!  |2 

.^-:2  .fli^l  1|  ^" 


' 
QQ        ^8     «     tf 


"S  'o"_-         i  ^        -^  «3  £3        £  .2   >-  £ 

1^1  '  '  fe^B  -         1    ® 

w<2«  w  S  £     jS^f2Q 


o  o  w 

•O"«l 


a  -§ 


:-=--« 


»  « 


3  tlti 

i  -Iff! 

£     .3  .-a 

ii^. 

!  Ill 
rl1!8 ' 


mar,  M 
ew  York 


rr! 
.S  O* 


La 


Loc 

165 


9 

l| 

ii « 

3C 


>^  : 
»'a 

•  xO 


*  CO         §3 

!  c     ^ 

ill 
1 1. 


^       ~  CO  S 

wSS 


pan; 


05 

^Ms 

•<    Q 


p       PH 

C^  50 

1  S 

«    2 

^  a 

i! 

^  -S 

W       EH 


1  1 


-a 


>, 

.3  -s 

* 


2        g    5     .;3S'    , 

a    o  ^   :§|  ! 
I    stlo  ;|1.s! 


i 

i! 

3      3^   o5>-;    ^ 


3       S 

^   a 


'    ^^^    2    §S    S       S    S 

1  S  3§3  §  3  3     if  I' 

S    S    «3       »    ?? 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT.       103 


§ 
a 

£ 
& 

^      o 

~  ft 

i  I 

oil 


5*  o 
d 

ft  S 

•8  I 

! :; 

o  g  < 

a>  «3  : 


-S       o      ^~ 
o3     £      a- 

SI? 

O         «        03 

^    S    fc 


&il 


00000 

Q     ft     p      Q     « 


^!i!l|P 

S*8WIFr 


I «: 

s 

S        ! 


S          cJ     SJ     e5     S     ro 

3       33333 


rH  CC 
CO 

>%  bib 

S  3 

o  -I 


O        O 


<!       CO 


104        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        105 


.2     a 

!  S 

o          3 


1  1 

o  5 

1  5 

AH  £ 


-nSwJti 

its 


-C3^- 


•3  s  -  &  a  9 


2a 


s 


fif 


tti 

S; 


II 

3 

ill 

m 


si  ls£l 


a 

s< 

02 

«3^      o 
^     | 

«l      f 


s» 


=sl 


c      t* 
.S 


SB   I!   I 


S    I 


II  S  I  * 

s«     S    .-§    gS 

o      fl      ? .? 


H    fi    g    ^M 

'<-'       2      O  AH' 


.ES-S, 


?"  4 


US- 


S       §5    ?5 

I      I    I 


>     >     >        +; 

O        O        O  o 

^    ^    »      o 


106        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


s|*.s 

"JW 

^2£- 


*    CJU  w    3  .in    .  " 

oj      ft-e-fc 

oH-c)      cs 


s    .a 


i 


« 
^ 

•»— 

5 


j?  |h  -2 
a  I«   g 

^io-jSS  « 
sa>§S  | 

8^     f 
^§S^-    ~ 

H^I'SE' 

El-^'sif 

MI* 

Mps*J 

•Scc  =  S»«^ 

w-1 


•S     I 

£ 


If  111  HI 


KM 


•3.SS      Sot^^WS'.S 

I!  1S1 


I  il  i 
i  §*  - 

'  S  3 

if  >• 
i  f a  .1 

i  PI 

i  rii 

•3  Sllf 


I 


is  | 

c-"      - 

ii  i 

ga  s 

"3    5 


13  I 

«!§..& 


«l 


4 

(SfiS         v. 

jO^>,    CM    a 

si^s  Is 3 

•p^'aa*  ^=-°" 

5§cwS      g|^g 

•s§o  ^  s-isg 

P       S5       ta       £ 


fl 


IS 

wg 
Jl 

tl= 

ant 


£s 


I? 
II 

C3 


•O! 

•Sa 
•^ 


o^ 

|3 
13 

•23 


fee 

a. 2 
^^ 


«c 


s  .§. 

P    3- 


II  13 

^         H 


525  | 
g£ 


SIS 
3Si 

|s^ 


jS    ^ 

!z    525 


!>  > 

II 


fe       88 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       107 


I       1 


o                 do 

ft                0         ft 

to          3 

Not  sta 

1 

;_, 
O 

.2 
3 
fl 

PM 

0 

Q 

<3 
1 

o 

is 
fi 

o 

Q 

o 
Q 

£  |ggts" 
+3w3 


Ilia 
^1 


-o 


l|§-|s1^  -p    §5    §l^^?|&   e'slSl    ||«    ^'^1^   !«   Ha 

wj  Jij  list  ^.iiii 


ill   °S    I     If    EH 

:£*     ^^l          |o     ^1 

rZfc"1  ^^5-3  .    |3   -g^J 

&^^  cnL^       ^^       Tj"S 

M^£     fijg      gO( 

'  "^s  *aii 

•jl§f1 

a§ofe^. 


^2   Bill* 

3  CM     .S?-1  C-^^t-j 

5  Q  U5 


21 


i°. 

S  s* 

jj 

li 

a& . 


5  1 


s  |s 

•8  &H 

S  S^' 

•Sfd  S'S 

,*  ^s. 

•|  2  .-S 

II  «l 


o 

S« 


I      1    II 


o     -• 

Is  IS  I 


108        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


a 
>, 

ii 

302 

PH 


-33 

a  o 


« n 

E  £ 


555. 


§!|^.|  g*g*|M4  ||d|V  III 

ES-ais.-flfc'g     hSSQsjJ    -a^TJfl^o^Sw)    •pi^ld    a  «* 

wl 


Jflv- 
3  O 
&2^ 


r 


^H  I2l!*2ss 


*Ste 

I"-; 


P  0*i 

^^M 

*!  w«rt 


^^Kilj 

3  §8*^23 


i* -IS* 


3o>l^ip-2«^      gaJo3§3^    ^a-rtl^gSS^55      6J-    1*     5 

iiifi»Jd£iM  ilili 

;-g<5t:S53>i5£    -^S5sr-^z«:!5feS2*,fl    ^•§«c?3£ 


11| 

.13  a&f*^ 


I§| i «-si n .  g  ii|«v| riftim^  «ft|" = 

§>.  e'l^JIslaa'aSSlSs  J^f  si^SSas^  §.lf 


ft    ft 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       109 


>> 


3       £3 

3         a  ft 
PH         tf 


F*!g       0*3      t3 

_M   C3          E/v    3          ^ 

IS    llgl 


110        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 


1  1 

^  S 


1  5 


o  «t^> 
SI'S 

<£    S  ^ 

DQ  *  O 


1 1 

3      £> 

A  £ 


Ssf^-SStSo 

''•~£3£^g 

S01^  G-^SB       -iftOW) 

£^lfi£  |3ll 

bESSS-H"  -    5-^^'S 


•=•3-    sS§f=-_-   i-sSs   3 

II!          HEI  ! 


%||  il; 

lo?«rflfi%6a«asi  ^ 

&*r§w^*M*r!rJ2;§lM  •= 
«ltf|JrfsflS|l|rf  & 

IKlteililllllllli 


»    I 


s     ss 


"g    3 

3  C-        3 


«S  fi  3  « 

a||«s   *!s£ 


|§  p|p|sl1l| 


111 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  AOT.       Ill 


) 

s 

a 

£  -•                      *2 

2 

• 

'•3 

>!    I                     1 

S    -2*                         *» 

3 
O        CJ 

Q  1 

| 

1  ^    ^ 

PH 

^ 

PH 

and  transmission  line,  East  Walker 
River,  Mono  County,  Calif. 
Dam  at  outlet  of  Swan  Lake,  pipe  line  to 
poAver  house  on  beach  at  Carroll  Inlet. 
Dam  at  outlet  of  Mirror  Lake  and  pipe 
line  to  poAver  house  at  head  of  Big  Lake. 
Dam  at  outlet  of  Big  Lake  and  pipe 
line  to  power  house  on  Fish  Creek  above 
lower  lake.  Transmission  lines  to  pulp 
mill  at  mouth  of  Fish  Creek,  on  Thorne 
Arm,  25  miles  from  Ketchikan,  Alaska. 
Power  deA'elopment  on  the  Deschutes 
River,  Oreg.  (Metolius  site). 
Power  development  on  the  Deschutes 
River,  Oreg.  (reclamation  site). 
Divert  Deep  Creek  and  Camas  Creek  to 
a  common  power  house  on  Deep  Creek, 
in  sec.  14,  T.  39  S.,  R.  22  E.  Trans- 
mission line  20  miles  to  LakeA-ieAV,  Lake 
County,  Oreg. 

3N  DURING  THE  WEEK  ENDING  JA 

Transmission  line  24  miles  long  from 
Blackfoot  to  Pocatello,  Idaho. 
Power  development  in  Turkey  Creek,  at 
Turkey  Creek  Hill,  near  Valpariso,  Fla. 

Dam  and  reservoir,  18-mile  conduit,  and 
power  house  on  North  Fork  of  Feather 
River,  T.  20  and  21  N.,  R.  4  E.,  M.  D. 
M.,  near  Onmlle,  Butte  County,  Calif. 

••• 

02 

:    -*J' 

i 

c 

j    S 

o> 
Pi 

~ 

•    ft 

c? 

8 

'    B> 

•9 

M 

w        fl             o 

S                          ** 

C 

C 

H 

•c 

i 

o3     ^        ^ 

PH 

2 

°      £ 

2      PH 

C      -*~ 

M 

J3 

I!5 

^ 

PH 

§ 

0 

tJo'2       °" 

2 

w 

SQ^               .1 

o 

H 
tt 

If        1 

02 

^ 

J^grt        | 

8                        1 

8 

« 

.J^^     *T 

1                 ^ 

0 

Q 

°     ^  »     £ 

•       ,                            c 

:-  I        i 

>       >                        c_ 

I 

}       >. 

i 

| 
I 

W 
§ 

<u'3  05*3      Pi 

2       » 

£3                         S 

Is 

tZj 

02 

5  5     i 

e 

| 

5 

o 

-«J 

T 
C 
o 

1 
i 

2 
PH 

1 

i 

| 

e 

PH 

^->    fe      ^ 

| 

: 

C 
£ 

Iti 

•< 

s  I     I 

§3                         5 

) 

3 
j 

1! 

O 

1!  I 

5     m 

3 

EH 

'O 
O      'T?           "*5 

*   i            M'  ' 

<1  2 

KH 

•i    2      « 

j       fi                           W 

O 
02 

^ 

2    fi      o 

^       ?5                       S    S    S 

«T5        CO               00 

!   I            1  1  1 

il  1  |l 

„                . 

H      oi      c> 

i 

^        1C              <C 

o    ..  3                          S    S    S 

^           »H                    i-l 

112        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

List  of  applications  before  the  Federal  Power  Commission — Continued. 


Number  of  application. 

Name  of  applicant. 

Application. 

Location. 

Capacity  (horsepower). 

Conflict. 

|  Valuation  required. 

State. 

j 

"c 

Preliminary  permit. 

j 

Declaration  of  intent. 

Public  lands. 

1 

j 

"S 

c 

•3 

\ 

6 

f 

i 

1 
2 
3 

\ 
5 

6 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 
14 

15 
16 

17 

18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 

25 

26 
27 

28 
29 
30 

31 

32 
33 
34 

35 

36 
37 

38 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

Y 

Y 

X 
X 

100,000 
5,000 
300,000 

10,000 
272,  000 

75,000 

60,000 
900,000 

92,000 
106,  000 
95,000 
217,550 

8,250 
.      10,000 

5,000 
»  400,  000 
4,000 

25,000 
66,000 
21,500 

2,000 
228,600 
600,000 

1  250,000 

Arkansas. 
Idaho. 
Washington. 

Alaska. 
Montana. 

New  York. 

Virginia. 

New  York. 

California. 
Washington. 

Do. 

Montana. 

New  York. 
Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Missouri. 

Idaho. 
Do. 
Do. 

Missouri. 
/New  York  and 
\Pennsvlvania. 
New  York. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Oklahoma. 

Minnesota. 
Do. 

Arizona      an 
California. 

New  Jersey. 

California. 
Arizona. 
Montana. 

Washington. 

Do. 

New  York. 
Oregon. 

G.  W.  Spoerry  
Washington  "irriga- 
tion   &    Develop- 
ment Co. 
Speel  River  project.. 
Rocky       Mountain 
Power  Co. 
Niagara  County  Irri- 
gation   A:    water 
Supply  Co. 
Roanoke  Ri  . 
velopment  < 
St.  Lawrence  Trans- 
mi     ion  Co. 
Pitt  River  Power  Co. 
Sound  Power  Co  
Strait 

X 

X 
X 

... 

Y 

X 

.:: 

X 
X 

x 

'.'.'. 

X 

X 
X 

34 

/  H 
\  15 

X 

X 
X 

}      5,000 

V 

Y 

23 

150,000 

X 
X 

\ 

... 

X 

X 

X 

x 

85 

5,000 

Hiu  I  lorn  Canyon  Ir- 
rigation  (V    Power 
Co. 
Ford  Motor  Co  
Western   New   York 
DililiesCo.  (Inc.). 
Hydraulic  Race  Co 

X 
X 

v 

x 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

... 

--- 

.X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

/  14," 

\   15 
86 

}    10,000 

X 

X 
X 

The     Xiatrara     Kails 
Power  Co. 
Western  Tie  X  Tim- 
ber Co. 
Idaho  Power  Co 

X 

Y 

V 

x 

x 

x 

do 

V 

x 

x 

rtah  Power  &  Light 
W  R   Banks 

X 
V 

X 
V 

... 

X 

X 

... 

X 
X 

X 

X 

Y 

Paul  T  Bradv 

x 

/  79 
\  31 
8 

6 

}    20,000 

Louisville       Power 
Corporation. 
Lower  Niagara  River 
Power    &    Water 
Supply  Co. 
(Niagara^    Lockport,] 
<     &   Ontario   River} 
I    Power  Co. 
City  of  Buffalo 

X 

X 

X 

x 

V 

75,000 

X 

x 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 

x 

x 

UJ 

Courtland    P.    Che- 
nault. 
Markham,  Kelsey  & 
Druar. 
St.    Cloud    Electric 
Power  Co. 
Beckman  &  Linden 
Engineering    Cor- 
poration. 
Canada      Syndicate! 
(Ltd.)etal.           / 
R.  W.  Hawley  

X 

X 

Y 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

x" 

3,000 
11,000 
6,000 
126,000 

432,300 

107,000 
9,000 

... 

x 

-- 

X 

/  79 
J22 

}  228,600 

... 

x 

X 

X 

V 

X 

.. 

C.  A.  Heberlein  
Montana    Water 
Power  &  Electric 
Co. 
Northwestern  Power 
&    Manufacturing 
Co. 
Poison,  Reed  &  Abel 

Thomson  &  Porter 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

Y 

-- 

... 

5 

X 

X 

x 

•• 

5,000 

11 

X 

X 
X 

900,000 
7,200 

/  45 
\89 

)•  500,000 

X 

Crown    Williamette 
Paper  Co. 

Y 

Y 

1  If  treaty  is  modified  to  permit  the  diversion  of  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second  additional,  these  figures 
will  be  increased  by  100,000  horsepower. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT.       113 

List  of  applications  before  the  Federal  Power  Commission — Continued, 


0 

Name  of  applicant. 

Application. 

Location. 

1 

Conflict. 

Valuation  required. 

State. 

Formal. 

•a 

j? 

£ 

License. 

Declaration  of  intent. 

Public  lands. 

National  forest. 

|  Indian  reservation. 

1 
p 

| 

03 

With  Case  No. 

Capacity  (horsepower). 

39 

40 

41 

42 
43 
44 
45 

46 
47 

48 
49 

50 

51 

52 
53 

54 

55 

56 
57 

58 
59 

60 

61 
62 
63 

64 

65 

66 

67 
68 

69 
70 
71 

72 
73 

74 
75 
76 
77 

Millard  F  Bowen 

x 

x 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

800,  000 
20,000 

30,000 
4,000 
8,000 
350,  000 
300,  000 

20,000 

16 

400,  000 

New  York. 
Connecticut 
and    Massa- 
chusetts. 
Alabama. 
Florida. 
Virginia. 
Washington. 
New  York. 

P  e  n  n  s  y  1- 
vania. 
Idaho. 

Illinois. 
West    Vir- 
ginia. 

Alaska. 
Minnesota. 

Alabama. 
Oklahoma. 

Washington. 

Florida      and 
Alabama. 
Washington. 
Oregon. 

California. 
Arizona      and 
Nevada. 

Alaska. 

Do. 
California. 

Alaska. 

California. 

Montana. 
Washington. 

California. 
Washington. 

North  Carolina. 
Montana. 
California. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

A.  P.  Connor 

X 

X 

x 

Alabama  Power  Co. 
The  Cove  Co 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

x 

Big  Bend  Power  Co. 
Hugh  L  Cooper 

... 

X 

X 

... 

Niagara  Gorge  Pow- 
er Co. 
W  A  Dromgold 

X 

24 

250,  000 

... 

v 

x 

Moore's            Creek 
Boulder    Gold    & 
Dredging  Co. 
State  of  Illinois 

X 
V 

x 

X 

V 

X 
X 

40,000 
30,000 

19,000 

Tri-State  Power   & 
Milling    Co.,    and 
Tri-State     Power 
Co. 
Tongass         Alaska 
Pulp  &  Paper  Co. 
Village     of     Grand 
Rapids,  Minn. 
City  of  Dothan,  Ala. 
E.  T.  Larimore,  L. 
E.  Mills,  and  C.  E. 
Bailey. 
Washington    Devel- 
opment   Corpora- 
tion. 
Reed  Bingham 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

x 

x 

60 

X 

x 

X 

X 

1,500 

x 

X 

X 

4,600 

100,  000 
378,  000 

386 
420  000 

William  F.  Scheffel.. 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

Columbia        Valley 
Power  Co. 
Luther  Hill 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Edw.  L.  Beyard 

x 

x 

x 

x 

V 

L.  J.  Vogter 

x 

x 

V 

32,000 

16,000 
31,200 
300 

15,000 

[50 
\  93 
J94 

19,  000 
*"      7,000 

\~ 

Wm.  D.  Grant  etal.. 
A.  P.  Seybold 

x" 

X 

X 

x 

... 

X 

x 

X 

x 

... 

... 

Alaska         Endicott 
Mining  &  Milling 
Co. 
Sespe  Light  &  Power 

Wm.'  Park  Mills  

X 

x 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

600 
10,  000 

120  000 

| 

Spirit  Lake  Ry.  & 
Power  Co. 
South         California 
Edison  Co. 
Wenatchee  Commer- 
cial Club. 
United  Mills  Co  
Rock  Creek  Power  Co. 
H.  H.  Wadsworth... 
So.  Sierras  Power  Co. 
J.  G.  VanZandt  
Electric  Metals  Co... 
R.  G.  McDonald... 

x 
x 

X 
X 

X 
X 

x 

X 

x 

... 

... 

x 
x 

... 

X 

x 
x" 

X 

X 
X 

x" 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

... 

X 

X 
X 
X 

"x 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
V 

".."." 

X 

100,  000 

1,400 
428 
30,000 
6,800 
37,  000 
143,  000 
4,000 
737 
15,000 

... 

75 

4,000 

-• 

72 

J.  Harvey  Pierce 

X  X 

Snow  Mount  Water 
&  Power  Co. 

X 

X 

... 

X 

... 

X 

2  Transmission  line. 


29414—21- 


114        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 
List  of  applications  before  the  Federal  Power  Commission — Continued. 


Number  of  application 

Name  of  applicant. 

Application. 

Location. 

Capacity  (horsepower). 

Conflict. 

Valuation  required. 

State. 

fe 

Informal. 

Preliminary  permit. 

License. 

Declaration  of  intent. 

Public  lands. 

National  forest. 

Indian  reservation. 

Navigable  waters. 

With  Case  No. 

9 

1 

1 

78 
79 
80 
81 

82 
83 

84 

85 

86 
87 

88 
89 

90 
91 
92 

93 
94 

95 
96 

97 

98 
99 

100 
101 

102 

103 

104 
105 

106 
107 

108 

109 
110 

111 

112 
113 

114 

Western  States  Gas 
&  Electric  Co. 
W.  C.  Albertson  and 
S.  L.  Mershon. 
Amazon  Dixie  Min- 
ing Co. 
Granite  Falls  Manu- 
facturing Co. 
Alabama  Power  Co 

X 

\ 

x 

X 

Y 

X 

X 

72,000 

20,000 
f2) 

X 

California. 

New  Jersey. 
Montana. 

North  Carolina. 

Alabama. 
South  Dakota. 

Montana. 
California. 

Missouri. 
California. 

Do. 

Arkansas. 

Arizona. 
Do. 

Mississippi. 

Alaska. 

Do. 

California. 
Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Do. 

Montana. 

North    Caro- 
lina. 

California. 

Do. 

Wyoming. 
California  . 

Idaho. 
Montana. 

Wisconsin. 

Montana. 
California. 

/Utah  and  Ari- 
\    zona. 
Washington. 
Utah. 

Alaska. 

X 

{    " 

}  

\ 
X 

X 

V 

Y 

Y 

Y 

\ 

X 

2,000 
120,000 

200 
7  500 

Y 

P;i  vine    Granite 
Quarry  Co. 
Town     of     Ronan, 
Mont. 
Southern  California 
Edson  Co. 
John  Daniell 

X 
X 

X 

... 

X 

X 

X 

X 
\ 

X 

X 

V 

Y 

X 

30,000 

40,000 
25,000 

•      27.900 

17 

4,000 

Coast  Valley  Gas  & 

l.li'.-iric  Co. 
Merced  irrigation  dis- 
trict. 
Garland    Hydro- 
Klivtrir  1'owerCo. 
Frank  <;    I  -an  in 

X 
X 
X 

\ 

Y 

X 

X 

V 

... 

Y 

V 

Y 

X 

V 

\ 

Y 

do 

Y 

Y 

y 

Y 

Y 

6.300 
1,800 

7,000 
7,000 

30,  000 
45,000 

19,000 

400,000 
2,500 

6.50 
2,  .500 

150,000 

3,000 

10 
800,000 

1.840 
75,000 
15  000 

W   II  Shrader 

Y 

Y 

X 

K.  L.  Weeks  
Alaskan  -  American 
Paper  Corporation. 

Utica  Mining  Co 

X 
X 

\ 

X 
V 

X 

X 

... 

/60 
\94 
f  60 
\  93 

}        7,000 
\ 

... 

\ 

\ 

\ 

f  

X 
X 

X 

San  Joaquin 
&  Power  Corpora- 
tion. 
Nevada  -  California 
Power  Co. 
Los  Angeles,  Citv  of 
Western  States  Gas 
A  KlectricCo. 
Flathead     Valley 
Electric  Co. 
Catawba     Vallcv 
Light     <t     Po\M'i 

Co. 

San   Joaquin   Light 
&  Power  Corpora- 
tion. 
Pattee,  Bernhard  & 
Ross. 
Home  Colony 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

... 

X 
X 

X 
X 

x 

X 
Y 

... 



X 

Y 

X 

Y 

Y 

si 

2.  500 

x 

X 
X 

X 
X 

Y 

... 

X 

X 

x 

... 

Southern   California 
Edison  Co. 
Mrs.  Nellie  P.  Bean. 
Butte-Jardine    Met- 
als Mines  Co. 
Wisconsin-Minne- 
sota Light  &  Pow- 
er Co. 
Joseph  B.  Leighton. 
Southern   California 
Edison  Co. 

do  

Citv  of  Everett 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

x 

X 

X 
X 

... 

... 

X 

x 

... 



x 

x 

Y 

Y 

X 

X 

x 

Y 

V3; 

Y 

x 

425.000 

3,570,000 
10,  000 

105 

f  59 
\121 

425,000 
}  420,000 

... 

X 

x 

... 

X 

X 

x 

X 

Great  Basin  Power 
Co. 
Mount       McKinley 
Gold  Placers. 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

Y 

X 

25,000 

500 

2  Transmission  line. 


Perhaps. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        115 

List  of  applications  before  the  Federal  Power  Commission — Continued. 


Number  of  application. 

Name  of  applicant. 

Application. 

Location. 

9 

& 

1 
g, 

i& 

§* 
O 

Conflict. 

T3 

1 

3 
1 

State. 

Formal. 

Informal. 

Preliminary  permit. 

License. 

Declaration  of  intent. 

Public  lands. 

1  National  forest. 

d 

o 

"S 
g 

d 

5 
-3 

o 
»—  i 

Navigable  waters. 

With  Case  No. 

? 

1 

>-> 

1 

115 

116 

117 
118 
119 
120 

121 
122 
123 
124 

125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 

132 
133 

131 
135 

136 
137 
138 
139 

140 

141 
142 
143 

144 
145 
146 

Stineman  &  Quick 

X 

X 

X 

50,  000 

9,  430 

C2) 
10,000 
10,  000 

District  of  Co- 
lumbia, Mary- 
land, and  Vir- 
ginia. 
California. 

Do. 

Washington. 
Alaska. 
California. 

Arizona. 
California. 
Do. 
Do. 

Do. 
Idaho, 
California. 
Do. 
Alaska. 
Colorado. 

Nevada. 

Alaska. 

Do. 

California. 

Oregon. 
Alaska. 
California. 
Alaska. 
California. 

Alaska 

Oregon. 
Do. 
Do. 

Idaho. 
Florida. 
California. 

Southern        Sierras 
Power  Co. 
do  

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 
X 

123 

9,  430 

Lloyd  E  Gandy.. 

V 

x 

M) 

CD 

X 

(*; 

(4) 

Frank  L.  Ballaine... 
Southern  California 
Edison  Co. 
James  B.  Girand.  .  .  . 
City  of  Los  Angeles. 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

x 

150,  000 

x" 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

... 

60,000 
60,  000 
25,  000 
60,  000 

111 

iie 

60,000 

.  .    do 

X 

x 

x 

AT 

x 

Southern        Sierras 
Power  Co. 
do  

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

30,  000 
400 
16,  800 
27  500 

m 

Love  &  von  Brecht.  . 
Good  win  M.  Trent.. 
City  of  Los  Angeles.  . 
William  R.  Rust  

X 
X 
X 

x 

x 

X 

... 

X 

x 

x 

V 

x 

x 

250 

f        700 

(2) 
19,000 

500 
(•) 

22,  000 
3,  000 

Grace  S.  Eyre  . 

x 

x 

X 

X 

x 

Consolidated    Span- 
ish    Belt     Silver 
Mining  Co  

x 

x 

W.  E.  Epperson 

x 

x 

x 

Kantishna  Hydraulic 
Mining  Co.. 

x" 

X 

x 

X 

X 
X 

•t 

X 

x 

X 
X 

x 

x 

114 

500 

City  of  Los  Angeles.  . 
Portland     Railway. 
Light  &  Power  Co. 
Maurice  D.  Leebey.  . 
Crocker  &  Preston... 
George  C.  Hazelet     . 

X 

X 

x 

x 

X 

X 

x 

... 

X 

38,  400 
12.  000 

C.  E.  Loose. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

6,000 

Paul  Butler  

H.  S.  McGowan... 
do  

X 

X 

X 

29,000 

387,  000 
37,600 

/  50 
\60 

57 

)•    29,000 
387,  000 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

Mushen  &  Cronsmil- 
ler. 
Idaho  Power  Co  
Harold  Winter 

X 
X 

X 

X 

x" 

X 

X 

X 

1,000 

-- 

X 
X 

X 

X 

... 

(2) 
400 
5,200 

Great     Western 
Power  Co. 

Total  
Deduct  conflict 

X 

94 

52 

112 

34 

— 

50 

81 

15 

47 

15,553,930 
3,  018,  030 

3,018,030 

14 

Net  total 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

12,535,900 

1 

...|... 

2  Transmission  line. 


Military  reservation. 


Net  horsepower. 

45  projects  on  navigable  streams  involving  approximately 5, 815, 350 

101  projects  on  public  lands  and  reservations,  involving  approximately 6, 720, 550 

14  projects  requiring  property  valuation,  involving  approximately 738, 200 

NOTE.— Capacities  of  Niagara  projects  are  listed  in  table  as  limited  by  diversion  now  authorized  by 
treaty. 


116        PKOPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Applications  by  States. 


State. 

Number 
of  appli- 
cations. 

Estimated 
horsepower 
to  be  de- 
veloped. 

State. 

Number 
of  appli- 
cations. 

Estimated 
horsepower 
to  be  de- 
veloped. 

Alaska 

15 

93  050 

New  Jersey 

3 

432.  300 

Alabama 

3 

150  000 

New  York 

13 

2  813  200 

•Arizona     

7 

3.  739.  200 

North  Carolina  

3 

3,400 

-Arkansas 

2 

125.000 

Oklahoma  

2 

4,500 

California 

39 

2  544,700 

Oregon 

6 

445,  800 

Colorado  

1 

700 

Pennsylvania  

1 

20,000 

'Connecticut 

1 

20.000 

South  Dakota  

1 

C1) 

District  of  Columbia 

1 

50  000 

Utah 

1 

25,000 

Florida 

3 

9  000 

Virginia 

2 

68  000 

Maho 

s 

119.  740 

Washington     

12 

1,  171,  000 

Illinois 

l 

40  000 

West  Virginia 

1 

30,000 

Minnesota 

3 

17  000 

Wisconsin 

1 

75.000 
,o,uuu 

Mississippi 

1 

1.500 

Wyoming  

1 

Missouri 

g 

32  000 

Montana 

10 

50.~>  800 

Total 

146 

12,  535,  900 

Nevada 

1 

(i) 

'  Transmission  line  only. 
is  of  projects  <;/lri  rlixid. 


Project 
No. 

Applicant. 

Date  advertised. 

Date   limiting   re- 
ceipt   of    objec- 
tions. 

3 

:,s 
9 

48 

1 

:.7 

67 

55 
82 

14 
15 
16 
24 
25 
26 
37 
45 

8 
70 
17 
62 
74 
73 
05 
20 

69 

81 
101 

77 

7 

13 
32 
99 
87 
113 
66 
96 

(  'row  n-Willainette  Paper  Co  (Oregon)           * 

• 
Oct.  2,  1920  

Dec.  7,  1920. 
Dec.  24,  1920. 

Dec.  13,  1920. 
Feb.  10,  1921. 

Feb.  16,  1921  (Nov. 
15,  1920,  orig.). 
Doc.  18,  1920. 
Feb.  10,  1921  (Jan. 
7,  1921,  orig.). 
Jan.  20,  1921  (Dec. 
29,  1920,  orig.). 
Jan.  10,  1921. 
Jan.  20,  1921. 
Jan.  12,  1921. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
None  fixed. 

Jan.  12,  1921. 
Jan.  24,  1921. 
Jan.  29,  1921. 
Feb.  10,  1921. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Feb.  15,  1921. 
Feb.  21,  1921. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Feb.  24,  1921. 
Mar.  16,  1921  (Feb. 
24,  1921,  original). 
Feb.  15,  1921. 
Feb.  28,  1921. 
Do. 
Do. 
Mar.  9,  1921. 
Do. 
Do. 

Washington  Irrigation  &  Development  Co.  (Wash- 
ington). 
Luther  Hill  (California) 

Oct.  16,  1920 

Oct.  11,  1920  

Pitt  River  Power  Co.  (California)  
State  of  Illinois 

Nov.  17,  1920  (Oct. 
13,  orig.). 
Dec.  6,  1920  (Sept. 
11,  orig.). 
Oct.  16,  1920  
Nov.  Hi,  1920  (Oct. 
29,  orig.). 
Nov.  26.  1920  (Oct. 
25,  orig.). 
Oct.  28  1920 

I)i\ic  Power  Co.  (Arkansas) 

Columbia  V  alley  Power  Co  (Oregon) 

Southern  California  Edison  Co.  (California)  . 

A  Reed  Bingham  (  Alabama  and  Florida) 

Alabama  Power  Co.  (Alabama) 

Nov.  12,  1920  
Nov.  13,  1920  
do 

Niagara  County  Irrigation  &.  Water  Supply  Co.1 

\V<'>U"'ii  \'i"v  York  (  tililiesCo 

'  i  He  Race  Co 

.do  

i  Falls  Power  Co 

do 

-  iagara  River  Power  &  Water  Supply  Co  
Niagara  Lockport  &  Ontario  Power  Co 

do  
....do  

Citv  of  Buffalo 

do  

do 

Niagara  Gorge  Power  Co.  (New  York) 

.do  

Niagara   Cni'mly    irrigation    &    Water    Supply  Co., 
merged  with  Niagara  Power  &  Development  Co. 
St.  Lawrence  Transmission  Co.  (New  York)  
Rock  Creek  Power  Co  (Montana) 

Dec.  21,  1920  

Nov.  13,  1920  
.do  

Western  Tie  &  Timber  Co.  (Missouri)  

Nov.  16,  1920  
Nov.  17,  1920  

A.  P.  Seybold 

Electro  Metals  Co  (California") 

do.  ... 

J.  G.  Van  Zandt  (California) 

Nov.  19,1920  

Wm  Park  Mills  (Montana) 

Nov.  20,  1920  

Utah  Light  &  Power  Co.  (Idaho)  

Nov.  22,  1920  
Nov.  24,  1920  
Nov.  29,  1920  

Merced  irrigation  district  (California)  
United  Mills  Co 

Granite  Falls  Manufacturing  Co 

do  

Catawba  Valley  Light  &  Power  Co.  (North  Carolina). 
Snow  Mountain  Water  &  Power  Co.  (California)  
Roanoke  River  Development  Co  (Virginia) 

do 

Dec.  1,  1920  
Dec.  10,  1920  (Dec. 
4,  original). 
Dec.  4,  1920  
Dec.  6,  1920  
Dec.  8,  1920  

Henry  Ford  &  Son  (Inc.)  (New  York)  
R  .  W  .  llawley  (California)  
Western  States  Gas  &  Electric  Co.  (California)  

Coast  Valleys  Gas  &  Electric  Co.  (California)  
Gieat  Basiii  Power  Co.  (Utah) 

Dec.  9,  1920  
Dec.  15,  1920  
Dec.  16,  1920  
Dec.  18,  1920... 

Spirit  Lake  Railway  &  Power  Co.  (Washington)  
San  Joacmin  Licht  tt  Power  Co.  (California)  .  .  . 

1  Merged  with  Niagara  Power  &  Development  Co. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        117 
Synopsis  of  projects  advertised — Continued. 


Project 
No. 

Applicant. 

Date  advertised. 

Date  limiting   re- 
ceipt   of    objec- 
tions. 

105 

Southern  California  Edison  Co  (California) 

Dec.  20,  1920  

Mar.  21,  1921. 

120 

do                                                                        -  -. 

do  

Mar.  10,  1921. 

6 
39 

Niagara  County  Irrigation  &  Water  Supply  Co., 
merged  with  Niagara  Power  &  Development  Co. 
(Readvertisement,  New  York.) 
Millard  F.  Bowen  (New  York)  

Dec.  21,  1920  
Dec.  22,  1920... 

None  fixed. 
Mar.  10,  1921. 

78 
85 

Western  States  Gas  &  Electric  Co.  (California)  
Southern  California  Edison  Co  (California) 

Dec.  23,  19202  
Dec.  24,  1920  

Mar.  16,  1921. 
Mar.  14,  1921. 

125 

Southern  Sierras  Power  Co.  (California)  

Jan.  3,  1921  

Mar.  21,  1921. 

2  This  advertisement  was  recalled  Dec.  27, 1920. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MILLARD  F.  BOWEN,  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

Mr.  BOWEN.  I  want  to  first  hand  to  each  of  you  a  map  of  the  pro- 
posed St.  Lawrence  and  ail-American  ship  canals,  in  connection  with 
which  power  will  be  generated ;  and  the  question  arises  whether  under 
the  act  as  it  is  the  Federal  Power  Commission  has  jurisdiction  to 
declare  the  all-American  route  for  the  ship  canal  a  public  highway  of 
the  United  States.  I  ask  that  the  written  portions  on  the  map  be  put 
in  the  record. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Has  that  any  relation  to  the  bills  we  are  discussing  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  No ;  it  is  a  request  that  the  committee  add  an  amend- 
ment, a  committee  amendment,  that  will  designate  specifically  what 
jurisdiction,  if  any,  the  Power  Commission  would  have. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  you  an  amendment  prepared  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  The  amendment  I  would  propose  to  exclude  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  commission  the  Niagara  River  allowance  of  water 
by  treaty  with  Canada. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Amendment  like  that  would  not  be  germane  to  this 
committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  doubt  very  much  if  it  would  be  germane.  If  it 
goes  to  the  personnel  and  don't  affect  the  provisions  of  the  original 
power  act  affecting  jurisdiction  of  projects  I  rather  think  your 
amendment  on  15126  would  be  germane.  You  will  notice  that  only 
deals  with  personnel,  how  it  is  to  be  paid,  where  taken  from,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  BOWEN.  I  understood  the  committee  could  submit  a  committee 
amendment  that  would  cover  such  a  case.  I  have  put  up  to  the 
chairman  of  the  Senate  committee,  Mr.  Jones,  this  question,  whether 
in  enacting  the  Federal  power  act  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
had  in  contemplation  the  delegation  of  power  to  the  commission  to 
declare  such  a  route  for  a  ship  canal  a  public  highway  of  the  United 
States.  Jurisdiction  over  the  development  proposed  in  the  ship 
canal  plan  can  only  be  had  if  that  declaration  can  be  made.  I  was 
told  by  Mr.  Jones  that  it  was  not  in  contemplation  of  Congress  that 
that  power  of  Congress  should  be  delegated  to  the  commission.  If 
that  is  true,  then  the  consideration  of  this  matter  of  the  ship  canal  by 
the  Federal  Power  Commission  would  be  beyond  their  jurisdiction, 
and  there  are  so  many  questions  that  join  themselves  together — the 
route  from  Lake  Erie  to  Lake  Ontario  is  so  closely  united  in  this 
application  with  the  route  from  Ontario  to  the  Hudson  that  they  can 
not  be  divorced  from  each  other,  and  I  have  been  informed  and  notified 


118        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

that  on  the  24th  of  January  there  would  be  a  hearing  before  the  com- 
mission of  all  the  applications,  8  or  9  or  10  of  them,  referring  to  the 
diversion  of  the  treaty  water  of  the  Niagara  Kiver.  And  further- 
more, I  have  been  notified,  not  in  writing  but  by  word,  that  at  that 
hearing  there  will  be  no  chance  to  put  in  a  consideration  of  the  ship 
canal  plan  as  extended  from  Ontario  to  the  Hudson,  and  that  would 
be  a  separate  question 

Well,  now,  it  can  not  be;  the  best  interests  of  the  people  are  so  inter- 
woven in  making  a  good  job  of  the  whole  of  the  ship  canal  from  Lake 
Erie  to  the  Hudson  River  that  to  divorce  the  Mohawk  Valley  route 
from  the  Niagara  route  would  not  be  for  the  best  interest  of  the 
people,  and  with  that  end  in  view  I  have  asked  the  committee  to 
consider  that  there  is  great  danger  that  all  the  treaty  water  that  is 
allowed  to  be  diverted  from  Niagara  River  will  be,  unless  some  action 
is  taken  by  Congress,  licensed  and  granted  to  other  purposes  than  such 
a  combination  of  purposes,  including  the  ship  canal,  as  this  project 
covers. 

It  is  a  matter  of  grave  importance  and  a  matter  that  I  think 
should  receive  the  attention  of  Congress  immediately,  because  soon 
after  the  hearings  on  the  24th  of  this  month  there  will  be  a  determined 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  to  get  its  50-year 
franchise  established  by  license  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  Federal  Power  Commission  > 

Mr.  BOWEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  do  you  want  ?    ' 

Mr.  BOWEN.  To  take  t'he  Niagara  River  out  of  (he  Federal  Power 
Commission's  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  afraid  they  will  act  wrongly  on  it  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  Only  they  have  said  to  me  already  they  are  not  going 
to  consider  its  relation  to  the  complete  ship-canal  plan  at  the  time 
of  this  January  24  hearing. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  "they?"  "They"  said  to 
you? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  Mr.  Merrill  has  said  to  me  that  the  consideration  of 
the  Mohawk  branch  of  the  ship  canal  would  not  take  place  at  the 
time  the  Niagara  ship  canal  is  to  be  heard  on  the  24th  of  January. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Why  don't  you  present  this  matter  in  a  separate 
bill  or  some  other  formal  way  and  bring  it  up  before  the  committee 
here,  either  in  the  Senate  or  the  House  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  It  was  suggested  to  me  by  the  chairman  that  I  might 
be  heard  at  this  time  and  see  what  the  committee  would  say  in  regard 
to  it,  and  if  that  seems  to  be  a  better  method  I  will  see  to  it  that  a 
separate  amendment  will  be  introduced  and  considered,  I  hope,  at 
the  same  time  in  connection  with  the  amendments  now  before  you. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Aren't  you  protected  under  subdivision  A  of  section 
10  of  the  water-power  act,  that  they  must  in  this  application  adopt 
a  comprehensive  scheme  of  improvement  and  utilization  for  the 
purposes  of  navigation  and  water-power  development  and  benefits  of 
other  public  uses  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  It  would  seem  so,  my  dear  sir,  if  the  Congress 
has  delegated  to  the  commission  the  power  to  declare  such  a  ship 
canal  a  navigable  highway  of  the  United  States.  The  commission 
itself  is  undecided,  as  I  have  been  told  by  their  counsel,  and  the 
International  Joint  Commission  also  have  doubts  about  the  jurisdic- 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       119 

tion  of  the  commission.  It  is  something  that  Congress  should  decide 
before  the  commission  has  the  power  to  grant  away  ail  of  the  waters 
that  are  now  under  the  jurisdiction  for  power  purposes  alone,  if  there 
were  not  such  a  plan  before  them  for  better  use  of  the  waters  of  the 
Niagara  River,  and  the  well-known  power  of  the  Niagara  Falls 
Power  Co.  behind  such  an  application  for  license — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Suppose  that  upon  the  hearing  it  will 
be  shown  that  there  was  a  higher  public  use  than  navigation  or  water- 
power  development?  Anything  that  would  be  to  the  benefit  of 
public  uses  could  be  shown,  couldn't  it  ? 

Mr.  BOWEN.  It  could  be,  but  then  it  leaves  the  proposition  to  be 
settled  whether  the  jurisdiction  could  extend  to  this.  The  route 
includes  several  portages,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin 
Rivers  the  Congress  gave  the  right  to  a  private  corporation  to  cut 
through  the  portage  between  the  heads  of  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin 
Rivers.  Only  Congress  could  do  that.  If  this  Water  Power  Com- 
mission had  been  in  existence  at  that  time  it  would  be  Congress 
that  had  the  jurisdiction  at  that  time,  I  claim,  and  it  would  seem 
this  Congress  should  take  away  from  this  commission  the  power  to 
dispose  of  that  Niagara  water  until  Congress  has  enacted  certain 
jurisdiction  in  the  matter;  and  it  is  admitted  by  Senator  Jones, 
without  any  hesitation,  that  Congress  did  not  contemplate  enacting 
in  the  law  that  such  jurisdiction  should  be  delegated  to  the  Federal 
Power  Commission;  and  I  ask  your  serious  consideration  on  that 
score,  that  there  is  a  possibility  of  doing  a  great  public  work  here 
that  may  be  spoiled  by  this  uncertainty,  and  that  you  can  correct 
by  taking  back,  if  you  have  ever  given  anything  away  to  the  commis- 
sion— take  it  back  and  enact  a  special  bill  covering  this  particular 
ship  canal  with  all  of  the  benefits  that  are  greater  uses  than  power. 

And  one  very  particular  thing  in  regard  to  the  ship  canal:  When 
the  Senate  last  year  was  considering  the  matter  of  referring  to  the 
Internationa,!  Joint  Commission  the  subject  of  investigation  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  route,  every  Senator,  nine  or  ten  of  them,  said  if  a 
route  could  be  obtained  through  our  own  country  that  they  would 
favor  such  a  route;  in  accordance  with  that  suggestion  I  went  to 
work  and  added  to  my  previous  plan,  which  only  included  a  route 
from  Erie  to  Ontario,  and  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  enough 
water  power  between  Ontario  and  the  Hudson,  together  with  water 
power  between  Erie  and  Ontario;  to  pay  for  the  ship  canal  without 
any  appropriation  and  without  any  tolls.  If  a  bill  could  be  con- 
sidered in  this  short  session  I  should  have  introduced  a  bill,  but 
being  sure  that  there  could  not  be  any  consideration  practically 
paid  to  the  bill  I  am  waiting  till  next  session;  then  the  bill  will 
provide  for  the  full  development  of  not  only  fifteen  hundred  thousand 
horsepower,  but  also  the  gift  to  the  Government  of  a  ship  canal 
without  tolls;  and  furthermore  to  the  Government  would  also  come 
a  division  of  the  net  earnings.  I  only  ask  that  you  give  it  fair 
consideration,  and  if  it  is  necessary  to  introduce  a  separate  bill  for 
this  amendment,  why,  after  you  do  consider  it,  I  hope  you  will 
notify  me  that  that  will  be  necessary. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Bowen  prepare  his  amendment 
and  extend  it  in  the  record. 


120        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

(The  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Bowen  is  indicated  in  italics 
at  the  end  of  the  following  bill:) 

[H.  R.  14760,  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  third  session.] 

A  BILL  To  amend  the  Federal  water  power  act  approved  June  11, 1920,  so  as  to  exclude  therefrom  nationa 

monuments  and  national  parks. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  act  of  Congress  entitled  "An  act  to  create  a  Federal 
Power  Commission;  to  provide  for  the  improvement  of  navigation;  the  develop- 
ment of  water  power;  the  use  of  the  public  lands  in  relation  thereto;  and  to  repeal 
section  18  of  the  river  and  harbor  appropriation  act,  approved  August  8,  1917,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  approved  June  10,  1920,  is  hereby  amended  so  as  to  exclude 
from  the  provisions  and  operation  of  said  act  national  monuments  and  national 
parks  of  the  United  States,  and  the  navigable  boundary  waters  of  the  United  States. 

(Further  data  submitted  by  Mr.  Bowen  is  as  follows :) 

WATER    ROUTE. 

Ail-American  ship  canal,  30  feet  deep.  Route  of  ship  canal  follows  barge  canal 
from  Lake  Oneida  to  Rotterdam  Junction.  No  tolls;  no  appropriations.  Plan  of 
Millard  F.  Bowen  for  Lakes  to  ocean  canal. 

We  do  not  need  to  go  to  Canada  for  a  ship  canal  route;  the  best  rou^e  is  as  shown  by 
the  dark  line  on  the  map  below. 

The  reasons  are  obvious: 

First.  Congestion  at  terminals  in  New  York  State  will  cease  when  ship  canal  is 
operated.  Every  point  upon  the  banks  will  become  a  possible  terminal  station  or  man- 
ufacturing site,  rower  will  be  generated  where  needed  most — in  central  New  York. 

Second.  Fourteen  hundred  thousand  horsepower  from  water  will  fill  requirements 
without  changing  Canadian  boundary  treaty.  Income  from  power  alone  will  pay  all 
the  cost. 

Third.  The  Government  need  not  spend  hundreds  of  millions,  but  will  get  part  of 
net  earnings  of  corporation,  as  well  as  the  canal  free  of  tolls  and  construction  cost. 

Fourth.  After  this  shall  have  been  accomplished,  then  aid  Canada  in  building  the 
St.  Lawrence  Canal,  but  insist  that  it  be  30  feet  deep. 

Fifth.  Twenty  years  ago  Commissioners  Angell,  Russell,  Cooley,  Raymond,  Noble, 
and  Wiener,  all  good  engineers  and  economists,  recommended  this  ail-American 
route  practically  as  now  offered  free  by  us.  Their  report  cost  $500,000. 

Sixth.  The  traditional  conservatism  of  Army  engineers,  that  ignores  income  from 
power  and  other  indirect  sources,  will  be  overcome. 

Seventh.  Lake  freighters  will  pass  back  and  forth  so  as  to  earn  money  all  the  year 
round.  The  United  States  will  maintain  control  of  navigation. 

Eighth.  It  will  be  of  great  military  value,  as  was  demonstrated  during  the  World 
War.  Floods  will  be  stored  and  flood  waters  used. 

Ninth.  Most  of  the  markets  of  the  world  are  nearer  via  this  route  and  it  has  a  longer 
season  of  navigation.  Sailing  time  from  Duluth  to  New  York  will  be  less  than  six 
days. 

Tenth.  We  ask  only  a  Federal  charter,  and  that  Congress  declare  the  route  a  public 
highway  without  tolls. 

These  are  hard  facts,  not  sentiment.     Americans  must  control  their  outlet  to  the  sea. 

This  is  the  most  important  engineering  issue  since  the  Panama  Canal. 

Dated,  Washington,  D.  C.,  September  1,  1920. 

MILLARD  F.  BOWEN  AND  ASSOCIATES. 


Area  of  watersheds  between  Lake  Ontario  and  Hudson  River,  4,800  square  miles. 

Estimated  run-off  averages  2.2  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile. 

Federal  charter  to  give  Government  jurisdiction  and  control  over  navigation  of  ship 
canal  to  be  built  by  private  enterprise.  Waterpower  to  pay  the  cost. 

Every  stream  to  have  storage  reservoirs  to  retain  sufficient  water  for  navigation  in 
the  ship  canal. 

The  barge  canal  for  100  miles  to  be  deepened  from  12  to  30  feet,  but  not  to  be  closed 
to  local  State  purposes. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       121 

At  Lake  Ontario,  vessels  to  be  raised  137  feet  by  one  set  of  locks;  from  thence  to  the 
Hudson  River  all  water  to  flow  eastward. 

High  counterbalanced  twin  lift  locks  to  be  built  at  Little  Falls,  Mindenville,  Am- 
sterdam, Guilderland,  and  the  Hudson  River,  instead  of  old  style  locks. 

Hudson  River  is  an  arm  of  the  sea  150  miles  inland;  it  never  completely  freezes. 

Senator  Lodge  said:  "  We  ought  to  think  long  before  we  join  with  another  country 
to  make  a  waterway  which  we  can  not  control.  The  people  who  control  the  mouth 
of  a  river  control  the  river.  If  a  waterway  can  be  found  through  our  own  country,  I 
think  the  canal  should  be  built  through  that  way.  The  route  should  be  through 
American  territory,  which  would  give  cheapness  of  transport  to  the  products  of  the 
agricultural  West,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  keep  it  within  our  own  boundaries.  As 
long  as  a  waterway  is  in  Oiir  own  territory  there  is  no  danger  of  any  international  dis- 
cussion. One  way  of  making  our  good  relations  with  Canada  as  close  as  possible  is  to 
avoid  subjects  of  disputes.  We  are  taking  some  risk  when  we  put  control  of  a  large 
portion  of  our  most  important  commerce  in  the  hands  of  another  country."  (Cong. 
Rec.,  p.  3845,  Feb.  18,  1919.) 


MILLER    TO    TEST   LEGALITY    WATER    POWER    RESTRAINT. 

ALBANY,  N.  Y.,  January  7.— Gov.  Miller  has  instructed  Attorney  General  Newton 
to  test  the  legality  of  the  Esch  Act  giving  control  of  State  boundary  waters  to  the 
Federal  Government.  This  action  was  taken  after  a  visit  by  Paul  A.  Schoelekoff, 
president  of  the  Consolidated  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co. 

The  action  of  the  governor  brings  forward  the  whole  question  of  hydroelectric 
development  of  the  State's  resources  and  the  policy  to  be  pursued  by  the  new  adminis- 
tration. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  some  witnesses  here  who  can  not  be 
heard  and  they  will  have  the  privilege  of  having  their  remarks 
printed  in  the  record  if  presented  within  the  next  few  days. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned.) 


LETTERS  SUBMITTED. 

LETTER   SUBMITTED   BY   MR.    ALBERT   L.    SCOTT. 

NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  January  7,  1921. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Water  Power, 

House  of  Representatives, 

MY  DEAR  CONGRESSMAN  ESCH:  I  was  very  much  pleased  yesterday  while  attending 
the  sessions  of  your  committee  to  note  the  careful  and  intelligent  way  in  which  you 
were  going  into  the  entire  question  of  the  relation  of  Congress  to  the  development  of 
water  powers  in  the  United  States. 

I  had  hoped  for  an  opportunity  during  the  afternoon  to  speak  to  the  committee  for  a 
few  moments  to  urge  the  necessity  of  setting  up,  under  the  Federal  Power  Commission, 
a  staff  of  its  own  capable  of  handling  the  tremendous  interests  with  which  the  com- 
mission has  to  deal. 

My  firm  has  been  engaged  in  engineering  work  in  this  country  for  a  great  many 
years.  Even  before  the  Civil  War  my  predecessors  were  building  dams  and  hydraulic 
developments  in  New  England  and  in  the  South,  and  our  interest  in  hydraulic  work 
has  continued  unabated  to  this  day.  Owing  to  the  difficulties  surrounding  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  water  power  in  the  last  decade,  we  have  found  it  difficult  to  continue 
our  water-power  operations  in  any  large  way.  With  the  formation  of  the  Water  Power 
Commission  we  felt  that  a  great  advance  step  had  been  taken  in  the  way  of  developing 
the  resources  of  the  country.  We  hope  that  your  commission  in  its  wisdom  will 
pro\ide  this  Water  Power  Commission  with  a  staff  which  will  make  it  possible  for  it 
to  function  intelligently  and  promptly.  In  my  opinion  it  can  not  do  this  if  it  is 
dependent  on  borrowing  its  personnel  from  other  departments  of  the  Government 
which,  presumably,  ha\e  plenty  for  their  own  people  to  do.  You  w^ould  not  consider 
having  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  conduct  its  affairs  on  a  borrowed  per- 
sonnel. The  Water  Powrer  Commission,  in  the  same  manner,  needs  its  own  highly 
specialized,  highly  trained,  and  experienced  organization. 


122        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Owing  to  the  difficulties  surrounding  the  development  of  water  powers,  there  has 
been  a  marked  tendency  in  recent  years  for  such  developments  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  a  relatively  small  group  of  corporations,  known  colloquially  as  the  "interests." 
With  the  formation  of  the  Water  Power  Commission,  especially  if  it  be  backed  by  an 
efficient  working  personnel,  water-power  developments  will  be  made  easier  to  achieve, 
and  we,  as  a  large  independent  engineering  organization,  are  very  anxious  to  have 
this  commission  get  under  way  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  I  therefore  urge  that 
you  modify  the  terms  of  House  bill  15126  to  make  it  possible  for  the  commission  to 
engage  its  own  personnel  independently  of  any  of  the  other  departments  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

Truly,  yours. 

LOCKWOOD,  GREENE  &  Co.,  Engineers. 
Per  ALBERT  L.  SCOTT,  Chairman. 


T.KTTKW   SUBMITTED    BY    MR.    M.    <>.    l.i;rc  MTOX. 

\YASHINGTON,  D.  C..  January  7,  1921. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Water  Power  Committee,  Houte  of  Representatives. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  ESCH:  I  attended  the  hearing  of  the  Water  Power  Committee  on 
H.  R.  15126  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  inuk.-  a  short  statement  on  behalf  of  Engineer- 
ing Council  as  to  the  provisions  of  lines  1  to  8,  inclusive,  of  section  2,  but  was  pre- 
vented from  so  doing  by  the  length  of  the  discussion  on  the  subject  of  national  parks. 
Permit  me,  therefore,  to  submit  the  following  short  statement : 

The  position  of  executive  secretary  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission  is  one  of  the 
most  responsible  in  the  executive  departments.  If  you  will  examine  a  copy  of  orders 
of  the  commission  numbered  1,  2,  3,  and  5  ('attached  her<'l<».  which  prescribe  the 
authority  and  duties  of  the  executive  secretary,  you  will  note  that  he  has  been  given, 
and  almost  of  necessity  must  be  given,  responsibilities  nearly  equivalent  to  those  of 
the  commission.  Ac-cording  to  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  his  acts  great  develop- 
ments will  be  accelerated  or  retarded  and  water  power  investment  will  become  at- 
tractive or  unattractive.  It  is  manifest  to  the  co'uncil,  on  whose  behalf  this  letter 
is  written,  that  neither  the  Government  nor  its  people  nor  the  developer  of  water 
power  can  afford  to  place  such  responsibilities  on  a  $5,000  man. 

\\ 'c  do  not  expect  Government  compensation  for  professional  services  to  be  on  a 
parity  with  that  which  hard-headed  business  men  have  found  it  wise  to  pay  for  such 
services,  but  it  seems  as  though  we  could  at  least  expect  the  Government  to  pay 
one-half  of  the  reasonable  rate  of  compensation.  The  water  power  law  and  the  orders 
of  the  commission  describe  a  man  who  would  be  paid  at  least  $15.000  a  year  in  similar 
private  work.  Engineering  Council  hopes  that  this  provision  of  the  bill  making  it 
possible  to  pay  $7,500  will  speedily  become  a  law. 

There  was  a  time  when  there  were  hundreds  of  men  in  the  departmental  service 
willing  to  work  for  a  small  part  of  that  which  they  could  earn  in  outside  service  merely 
because  of  their  interest  in  Government  work.  That  spirit  is  rapidly  passing  away, 
because  the  margin  between  the  one  and  the  other  luis  Ix-rome  so  wide.  There  are 
comparatively  few  such  men  remaining,  but  one  of  them  is  the  present  executive  sec- 
retary of  the  Power  Commission.  Ordinary  business  prudence  renders  it  advisable  to 
hold  that  man  where  he  is.  He  is  only  human,  and  it  is  inevitable  that  if  the  present 
rate  of  compensation  be  maintained  he  will  follow  the  example  of  many  hundred 
others  and  go  where  his  services  are  adequately  compensated.  If  this  occurs,  his 
successor  will  be  a  $5,000  man,  and  it  follows  that  he  probably  won't  fill  the  bill. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

M.  O.  LEIGHTON, 
National  Service  Representative,  Engineering  Council, 

700  Tenth  Street,  Washington,  D.  C. 


LETTER    SUBMITTED    BY   MR.    J.    H.    LEVERING. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  11,  1921. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  House  Committee  on  Water  Power. 

SIR-  Acting  upon  the  permission  granted  by  your  committee,  I  submit  this  statement 
to  be  included  in  the  transcript.  My  name  is  James  H.  Levering;  my  permanent  resi- 
dence is  Los  Angeles,  Calif.  I  am  temporarily  residing  at  No.  1006  East  Capitol  Street. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       123 

I  am  a  civil  and  hydraulic  engineer  and  have  been  in  the  active  practice  of  my  pro- 
fession for  more  than  30  years'.  I  am  professionally  and  personally  interested  in  legis- 
lation pertaining  to  water  power  and  hydraulic  energy  throughout  the  country.  As 
an  American  citizen;  I  am  interested  in  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  this  great  Gov- 
ernment, and  appear  before  this  committee  in  that  behalf. 

I  ask  vour  careful  consideration  of  H.  R.  15126,  and  that  it  be  amended  at  page  2, 
section  2.  line  4.  by  substituting  a  period  for  the  comma  after  the  word  "duties,"  and 
striking  out  the  remainder  of  lines  4,  5,  6.  7,  and  8. 

The  'commission  has  testified  that  applications  have  been  filed  with  them  for  the 
development  of  12,000,000  horsepower  hydraulic  energy.  A  survey  of  this  country 
shows  that  as  much  as  80,000,000  horsepower  may  yet  be  developed.  The  statement 
may  well  go  unchallenged  that  the  adoption  of  a  defective  plan  of  construction  results 
not  only  in  retardation  of  water-power  development,  but  also  renders  useless  a  vast 
outlay  of  money,  coupled  with  an  indefinite  delay  of  economic  conservation,  either 
of  which  would  in  the  end  prove  an  economic  tragedy.  There  could  be  nothing  so 
dangerous  and  unsatisfactory  as  to  depend  upon  an  incompetent  person  to  approve 
or  change  plans  of  such  magnitude. 

The  value  of  a  hydroelectric  plant,  one  that  is  well  designed,  lies  in  its  ability  to 
show  an  operating  profit,  otherwise  it  could  not  command  financial  support.  Fo  far  as 
I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  I  am  aware  of  no  hydroelectric  plant  constructed  by 
either  the  War.  Interior,  or  Agricultural  Departments,  or  anv  plans  that  were  ma- 
terially changed  bv  Government  engineers  that  can  generate  electric  current  for  less 
than  6  mills  per  kilowatt  hour,  or  has  ever  been  built  within  an  expenditure  of  $300 
per  horsepower.  In  making  this  assertion  I  include  the  interest  and  amortization  and 
cost  of  both  the  generating  and  hydraulic  units. 

Plants  have  been  built  without  Government  supervision  that  can  produce  power 
as  low  as  2  mills  per  kilowatt ihoijr. 

A  slight  change  in  the  construction  of  the  dam  or  the  installation  of  the  machinery 
or  the  transmission  lines,  or  even  in  event  an  extraordinary  system  of  bookkeeping 
might  be  installed  under  this  act  that  would  increase  the  producing  cost  more  than 
1  mill  per  kilowatt  hour.  When  the  present  12,000,000  horsepower  are  in  operation 
the  excess  cost  of  1  mill  per  kilowatt  hour  would  amount  to  a  total  of  $12,000  per  hour 
as  a  dead  loss,  or  more  than  $105,000,000  per  annum.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  am  quite 
sure  that  by  the  time  a  hydraulic  plant  has  been  through  the  routine  of  the  present 
commission,  and  all  the  changes  and  additions  required  by  them  have  been  made, 
.  it  will  impose  an  encumbrance  of  over  $200.000.000  per  annum  on  this  great  industry, 
and  will  be  that  much  of  an  irreparable  loss.  When  the  total  power  developed  in  this 
country  has  been  increased  the  loss  would  be  increased  proportionally. 

To  give  you  an  example  of  the  present  inefficiency  of  the  engineering  officer  of  the 
commission  I  will  quote  an  interview  which  appeared  in  the  Washington  Herald 
Friday.  December  17,  1920,  as  follows: 

''Doubt  as  to  the  feasibility  of  the  plan  of  J.  H.  Levering,  Los  Angeles  engineer,  for 
harnessing  Great  Falls,  was  expressed  yesterday  by  Lieut.  Col.  William  Kelley,  chief 
engineer  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  assigned  fron  the  Engineer  Corps  of  the 
Army. 

"Col.  Kelley  said  he  was  not  familiar  with  the  Levering  project,  but  understood  it 
called  for  a  specialty  constructed  type  of  earth  filled  dam  with  almost  vertical  sides 
and  a  thin  sheathing  of  steel  and  concrete  to  hold  the  earth  in  place. 

"'I  do  not  know  anything  about  Levering's  engineering  ability,'  said  Kelley,  'but 
if  he  is  an  engineer  at.  all,  he  ought  to  know  that  this  type  of  dam  would  not  withstand 
the  overtopping  floods  of  the  Potomac  in  the  spring  of  the  year.' 

"Any  dam  constructed  across  the  Potomac,  Col.  Kelley  said,  must  be  built  to  with- 
stand overtopping  fioods.  When  huge  cakes  of  floating  ice  and  big  tree  trunks  come 
sweeping  down  the  Potomac,  he  said,  they  would  go  over  the  top  of  the  dam,  but  their 
weight  would  force  them  down  on  the  lower  side  into  contact  with  the  wall  of  the  dam, 
and  it  would  quickly  be  ripped  open  and  the  dam  would  go  out. 

"Col.  Kelley  also  took  issue  with  the  stability  of  the  thin  sheets  of  protecting  steel 
and  concrete  with  which  Levering  would  encase  the  dam.  If  the  sides  of  the  dam 
were  given  a  greater  slant  instead  of  being  almost  vertical,  the  colonel  said,  the  steel 
walls  would  stand  a  better  chance,  but  with  the  pressure  of  the  water  without  and  the 
earth  within  the  walls  would  soon  bulge  out  and  break. 

"Col.  Kelley  cited  the  case  of  a  similar  dam  in  the  Yuba  River  in  California,  which 
went  out  with  the  first  flood.  He  said  the  report  of  the  Army  engineers^ now  engaged 
in  a  survey  of  the  project  under  the  authorization  of  the  Power  Commission,  probably 
would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  commission  some  time  next  week.  The  commission 
then  would  draw  up  its  recommendations  and  submit  them  to  Congress  with  the 
engineers'  report  by  the  first  of  the  year,  as  authorized  by  Congress." 


124       PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

This  is  the  authorized  statement  of  the  present  engineering  officer  of  the  Power 
Commission,  a  lieutenant  colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army.  He 
states  he  is  not  familiar  with  the  plan  that  he  is  criticizing,  but  that  does  not  seem  to 
be  an  important  factor  in  the  case. 

As  to  the  failure  of  the  Yuba  Dam,  the  personnel  of  this  select  committee  has  been 
very  properly  chosen  because  of  their  familiarity  with  the  subject  in  hand,  and  you 
can  readily  ascertain  if  a  calamity  as  serious  as  that  which  would  follow  the  failure  of 
a  dam  similar  to  the  one  proposed  for  Great  Falls  ever  occurred  upon  the  Yuba  1  iver. 
The  onlv  dam  that  I  recall  having  failed  on  that  stream  was  one  constructed  under 
the  authority  of  the  Caminetti  Act.  Col.  Kellev,  in  his  criticisms  of  my  proposed 
plan,  likened  it  to  the  one  cited  by  him,  and  as  the  engineering  officer  of  the  commis- 
sion seeks  by  virtue  of  his  authority  to  bind  the  commission  and  its  findings  and  to 
prejudice  their  views  against  my  plan  by  concluding  that  the  same  fate  would  befall 
the  one  built  on  the  Potomac  River  if  my  plans  (which  he  admits  he  is  unfamiliar 
with)  were  followed. 

Quoting  from  the  above  article,  Col.  Kelley  states:  "I  do  not  know  anything  about 
Levering's  engineering  abilitv."  As  to  this  I  certainly  have  the  advantage  of  him, 
as  his  ability  as  an  engineer  is  well  established  from  the  following  statement:  "If 
sides  of  the  dam  were  given  a  greater  slant  instead  of  being  almost  vertical,"  the 
colonel  said,  "the  steel  walls  would  stand  a  bettor  chance."  ""When  huge  cakes  of 
floating  ice  and  great  tree  trunks  come  sweeping  down  the  Potomac, "  he  said,  "they 
would  go  over  the  top  of  the  dam,  but  their  weight  would  force  them  down  on  the 
lower  side  into  contact  with  the  wall  of  the  dam  and  it  would  quickly  be  lipped  open 
and  the  dam  would  go  out." 

Assuming  the  colonel  to  be  familiar  with  exterior  ballistics  or  the  movement  of  a 
projected  body  through  space,  we  have  the  novel  conclusion  of  the  commission's 
export  engineer  advisor  that  such  a  moving  body  when  sweeping  over  a  perpendicular 
dam  would  quickly  rip  it  open,  and  his  remedy  to  pi'event  such  a  catastrophe  is  to  give 
the  face  of  the  dam  more  slant,  in  order  that  all  such  bodies  would  strike  the  structure 
with  all  the  force  of  tln-ir  weight  and  motion.  It  is  patent  to  any  one  that  such  a 
body  being  carried  over  a  dam  would  come  nonror  elearinir  a  perpendicular  wall  than 
if  the  face  of  the  structure  were  given  a  greater  slant. 

Col.  Kelley  assumes  that  such  a  floatine:  body  swooping  over  a  perpendicular  dam 
at  sufficient  velocity  to  rip  open  the  steel  wall,  which  would  by  calculation  show  as 
much  resistance  to  an  object  moving  almost  vertically  and  parallel  to  it  as  would  be 
developed  bv  the;  armor  plate  of  a  Battleship  ivooiving  Iho  direct  impact  of  a  high- 
powered  projectile  of  equal  weight.  It  is  evident  that,  the  eurront  and  momentum 
would  sweep  all  such  moving  objeets  away  from  a  perpendicular  structure.  In  order 
to  strike  the  face  of  the  dam,  if  would  not 'only  have  to  reveiso  its  motion,  but  pierce  a 
heavy  curtain  of  falling  water  before  it  could  be  impinged  against  the  structure. 

Should  the  retaining  wall  of  this  dam  be  given  a  greater  slant,  as  suggested  by  the 
supervising  engineer  of  the  commit  too,  we  will  say,  for  instance,  at  an  angle  of  45  ,  we 
would  then  have  this  immons"  wall  of  steel  and  concrete  ^hich,  in  the  case  of  the 
lower  dam  would  wok'h  more  than  20,000  tons,  resting  upon  the  earth-fill  embankment 
instead  of  standing  upon  its  foundation.  Should  the  material  of  the  dam  shrink  away 
from  this  wall  by  settlement  or  drainage,  it  would  leave  it  hanging  bv  its  fastenings 
from  the  walls  of  the  canyon,  and  should  it  by  anv  ftvak  of  luck  remain  in  that  position 
it  would  have  the  glory  of  the  leaning  Tower  of  Pisa  totally  eclipsed. 

The  absurdity  of  offering  to  this  commission  well-developed  plans  and  meeting  such 
criticism  as  those,  without  any  investigation  on  the  part  of  the  critic,  makes  it  v<-ry 
discouraging  to  attempt  to  get  a  sane  and  efficient  set  of  plans  adopted,  or  of  making  an 
investment  secure.  If  the  greatest  industry  of  this  country  is  to  be  placed  under  mili- 
tary control  by  the  enactment  of  this  bill,  we  may  have  many  repetitions  of  Muscle 
Shoals  projects  rather  than  satisfactory  water-power  installations. 

As  the  commission  consists  of  the  Secretaries  of  War,  Interior,  and  Agriculture,  and 
under  H.  R.  15126  it  is  hardly  possible  that  the  commission  would  deny  the  President 
the  right  to  appoint  the  engineering  officer  from  the  Army.  The  only  relief  from  this 
unfortunate  situation  is  to  trust  the  supervision  of  the  plans  to  men  who  have  had  ex- 
perience in  this  line  of  work.  Nothing  is  more  hazardous  for  money  investment  than 
an  improperly  constructed  power  plant,  whose  efficiency  or  use  may  be  impaired  or 
destroyed  from  improper  construction.  Such  propositions  must  be  made  attractive  to 
capital. 

The  highest  water-power  development  has  been  attained  in  Scandinavia,  where  the 
Government  encourages  rather  than  handicaps  all  buch  undertakings,  both  as  to  earn' 
ings  and  a  minimum  of  restrictions  and  regulations.  Many  millions  of  dollars  have 
recently  been  expatriated  to  Italy,  France,  and  throughout  Scandinavia  in  the  con- 
struction of  hydroelectric  plants.  Canada  is  rapidly  outstripping  our  own  country 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       125 

along  this  line;  and  we,  as  a  people,  may  well  look  to  our  laurels  if  we  expect  to  keep 
pace  industrially  with  other  countries. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  IT.  LEVERING, 

1006  East  Capitol  Street,  Washington,  D.  C, 


LETTER   SUBMITTED    BY   THE    SAN    FRANCISCO    CHAMBER    OF   COMMERCE. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CALIF.,  December  9,  1920. 
Hon.  JULIUS  KAHN, 

House  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  KAHN:  You  have  probably  had  brought  to  your  attention  the  pro- 
posed bill  for  a  modification  of  the  Federal  water  power  act,  passed  at  the  last  ses- 
sion of  Congress  and  approved  June  10,  1920. 

The  suggested  amendment  has  for  its  purpose  eliminating  the  national  parks  and 
monuments  from  the  provisions  of  the  act,  in  order  to  preserve  these  national  play- 
grounds from  use  for  the  creation  of  storage  reservoirs  and  power  plants.  The  agitation 
in  behalf  of  this  amendment  was  caused  by  the  plans  of  certain  irrigation  projects  for 
the  storage  pf  water  in  Yellowstone  National  Park. 

This  chamber  of  commerce  has  made  a  careful  analysis  of  the  act  as  it  now  exists  and 
a  studv  of  the  objections  raised  by  the  National  Parks  Association.  As  a  result  of  this 
study  the  board  of  directors  has  adopted  a  policy  in  relation  to  the  subject  which  we 
wish  to  commend  to  your  favorable  consideration  and  trust  that  you  will  be  able  to 
support  our  position  in  the  Congress. 

The  chamber  of  commerce  is  opposed  to  any  measure  which  would  completely 
eliminate  national  parks  and  monuments  from  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Power 
Commission.  It  would  indorse,  however,  a  measure  which  would  prohibit  the  con- 
struction of  any  dam  or  reservoir  or  power  house  by  a  power  company  within  the 
boundaries  of  any  existing  national  park,  and  would  support  an  amendment  to  the 
Federal  water  power  act  to  this  eiiect. 

The  chamber  believes,  however,  that  authority  should  remain  with  the  commission 
to  grant  licenses  for  reservoirs  and  power  plants  in  any  national  park  which  may 
hereafter  be  created,  or  in  any  extension  of  existing  national  parks,  and  that  the 
commission  should  retain  power  to  grant  licenses  for  transmission  lines  across  any 
national  park. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  future  it  may  be  desired  to  create  additional  national 
parks  and  extend  the  boundaries  of  existing  national  parks  to  many  of  the  mountainous 
sections  of  the  Western  States,  and  the  need  for  development  of  hydroelectric  power 
to  meet  growing  requirements  of  these  States  demands  that  some  competent  authority 
should  have  power  to  grant  licenses  outside  of  the  present  national-park  areas.  We 
can  conceive  of  no  safer  tribunal  for  this  purpose  than  the  three  Cabinet  officers 
heading  the  Departments  of  War,  Agriculture,  and  Interior,  within  whose  jurisdiction 
the  various  reservations  come. 

Should  the  authority  of  this  commission  to  grant  licenses  be  withdrawn  from  any 
extensions  of  existing  parks  or  new  parks,  the  fact  that  the  commission  would  thereby 
be  deprived  of  authority  to  determine  the  question  of  licenses  for  power  development 
would  render  much  more  difficult  the  task  of  securing  support  for  the  new  reservation 
from  communities  depending  upon  the  hydroelectric  development  within  the  sug- 
gested territory. 

Under  the  act  the  commission  may  grant  a  50-year  license  to  a  power  company 
for  the  development  of  a  project  in  a  forest  reserve,  and  it  may  be  necessary  to  such 
project  that  its  transmission  line  should  cross  a  national  park  and  we,  therefore, 
believe  that  no  modification  of  the  act  should  be  permitted  that  would  take  from  the 
commission  its  authority  to  grant  a  license  to  such  project  to  construct  such  transmis- 
sion line  across  a  national  park. 

The  parks  are  amply  protected  under  the  law  in  the  construction  of  such  transmis- 
sion line  by  the  provision  that  applicants  for  licenses  must  file  with  the  commission 
maps,  plans,  and  specifications  and  estimates  of  cost,  and  that  these  maps,  plans,  and 
specifications  must  be  approved  by  the  commission — one  member  of  which  is  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior — and  that  in  order  to  secure  such  approval  the  power  com- 
pany would  be  required  to  construct  its  lines  in  such  manner  and  over  such  portions 
of  the  park  as  would  not  be  a  detriment  to  the  purposes  for  which  the  park  was  created; 
and  further  the  license  is  subject  to  such  conditions  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  deems  necessary  to  the  adequate  protection  and  utilization  of  the  park. 


126        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

If  this  authority  is  denied  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  permission  to  construct 
a  transmission  line  across  a  national  park  must  be  secured  from  the  Department  of  the 
Interior  and  under  rulings  of  that  department  such  permit  would  if  granted  be  revok- 
able  after  one  year.  This  feature  would  of  course  jeopardize  the  entire  project  and 
render  financing  impossible. 

We  sincerely  trust  that  you  can  support  the  position  of  the  chamber  of  commerce 
asiabove  outlined,  and  we  shall  appreciate  any  information  which  you  may  be  able 
to  furnish  us  in  relation  to  this  entire  matter/ 

With  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am,  very  sincerely  yours, 

GEO.    C.    BOARDMAN, 

Viet  President  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commer"*, 


LETTER   SUBMITTED    BY   MISS   HARLEAN   JAMES. 

WASHFNGTON,  D.  C.,  January  8,  19,'i. 
HON.  JOHN  J.  KSCH, 

Chairman  Select  Commit  tee -on  Wiit.er  Poire  i\ 

House  of  Representatives. 

DEAR  MR.  I^CH:  In  accordance  with  permission  granted  us  to  submit  further 
resolutions  concerning  the  bills  considered  at  the  hearing  before  the  Select  <  'ommittee 
on  Water  Power  on  January  8.  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  statement  of  T.  Gilbert 
Pearson,  president  of  the  National  Association  of  Audubon  Societies,  statement  of 
Robert  Sterling  Yard,  executive  secretary  of  the  National  Parks  Association,  and 
statement  of  Harris  A.  Il'-ynolds.  representing  the  conference  for  the  protection  of 
the  national  parks  and  monument-  and  the  Massachusetts  Forestry  Association. 

In  addition  may  I  repeat  what  I  think  is  already  clear  from  the* testimony  offered 
before  the  committee,  thai  the  Americ.-m  '  ivie  Association  favors  both  Esch  amend- 
ments to  the  water  power  act  <  II .  II.  1  Hfi'i  and  II.  K.  r>!L'!i>.  \Vebelieve.withyou, 
that  the  national  parks  and  monument-  will  be  safeguarded  by  II.  H.  M409,  as  sub- 
mitted, first,  because  of  the  principle  which  will  be  established  by  the  passage  of  the 
bill  and,  second,  because  of  the  publicity  and  time  needed  to  secure  an  act  of  ( 'ongivss 
which  would  authorize  grants  of  the  people-'  rights  in  their  property  Local  hearings 
before  an  executive  commission  would  seldom  be  advertised  sufficiently  to  notify  the 
people  at  large  of  proposed  alienations  of  their  rights  in  national  parks  and  monuments. 
Thanking  you  for  the  courtesy  extended  to  us  at  the  hearing  I  remain. 
Very  truly,  yours. 

HARLEAN  JAMES, 
Secretary  American  ('iri<-  Association. 


LETTER  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  T.  GILBERT  PEARSOX. 

XEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  January  6,  1921. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Select  Committee  on  Water  Power, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  organization  which  I  represent,  with  its  branches  and  affiliated 
societies,  numbers  in  the  neighborhood  of  1,000,000  of  our  best  people  in  this  country. 
Permit  me  to  state  that  this  association  is  unalterably  opposed  to  any  change  in  the 
national  policy  which  has  hitherto  held  our  national  parks  inviolate.  We  are  opposed 
to  the  bill  sponsored  by  Representative  Smith  of  Idaho  to  construct  a  reservoir  for 
commercial  purposes  in  the  southwestern  corner  of  Yellowstone  Park,  and  believe 
that  the  Senate  gave  favorable  consideration  to  this  matter  only  because  of  a  mis- 
understanding as  to  the  character  of  the  territory  involved.  We  are  also  opposed  to 
the  bill  now  pending  in  the  Senate  which  has  for  the  purpose  the  damming  of  the 
Yellowstone  River  with  the  intention  of  storing  water  for  irrigation  in  Montana. 

In  reference  to  bill  H.  R.  14469,  intended  to  amend  the  water-power  bill  by  striking 
out  the  words  "national  parks  and  monuments,"  permit  me  to  say  that  we  greatly 
favor  this  and  hope  it  will  become  a  law. 

I  wish,  in  conclusion,  to  voice  my  strong  opposition  to  the  amendment  here  to-day 
proposed  by  Mr.  Pierce,  made  for  the  purpose  of  exempting  national  parks  which 
may  be  created  in  the  future  from  provisions  of  this  bill. 

T.  GILBERT  PEARSON, 
President  National  Association  of  Audubon  Societies,  New  York  City. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        127 

LETTER    SUBMITTED    BY   MR.  ROBERT    STERLING    YARD. 

Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Select  Committee  on  Water  Power, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington.,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  only  learned  of  this  hearing  after  dinner  last  night,  or  I  could  have 
brought  you  the  telegraphed  evidence  that  I  also  represent  other  organizations  besides 
my  own  whose  combined  memberships  reach  several  millions  of  voters. 

In  behalf  of  our  earnest  allies,  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  I.  present 
the  resolutions  passed  by  its  board  of  directors  on  September  16  last,  and  state,  of  my 
personal  knowledge,  that  the  federation,  which  numbers  about  9,000  clubs  and  2,500,- 
000  members,  is  active  to  its  fingers  tips  in  defense  of  the  national  parks  conservation. 
They  appear  at  the  close  of  this  statement. 

In  evidence  that  the  scientific  men  of  the  Nation  are  alarmed  at  the  threatened 
destruction  of  the  untouched  native  quality  of  the  national  parks,  which  constitutes 
their  value  to  science,  I  offer  you  resolutions  passed  a  few  days  ago  by  the  American 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  and  by  the  Ecological  Society  of  America 
at  their  recent  conventions  in  Chicago.  As  you  know,  the  American  Association  for 
the  Advancement  of  Science  is  the  most  distinguished  and  inclusive  association  of 
scientists  in  America.  It  has  14,000  members. 

As  an  example  of  the  attitude  of  those  many  universities  and  colleges  throughout 
the  land  who  have  expressed  themselves  upon  the  present  situation,  I  append  resolu- 
tions passed  by  Yale  University. 

The  association  which  I  represent,  and  hundreds  of  allied  organizations  from  Maine 
to  Texas,  from  Florida  to  Washington,  whose  earnest  purposes  I  personally  and  fully 
know  request  Congress  to  pass  H.  R.  14760  and  thereby  return  the  national  parks  and 
monuments  to  the  sole  authority  of  Congress. 

Lest  they  quarrel  with  me  for  not  joining  them  in  the  request,  I  must  name,  out  of 
the  many,  at  least  these  few  earnest  organizations. : 

The  American  Forestry  Association;  the  American  Automobile  Association;  the 
American  Federation  of  Art:  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs;  the  National 
Federation  of  Business  and  Professional  Women;  the  League  of  American  Penwomen; 
the  American  Bison  Society;  the  American  Game  Protective  and  Propagation  Associa- 
tion; the  American  Scenic  and  Historic  Preservation  Society;  the  Mountaineers, 
Seattle,  Wash.;  the  Natural  Parks  Association,  Seattle,  Wash.;  the  Sage  Brush  and 
Pine  Club,  Yakima,  Wash.;  the  California  Alpine  Club,  San  Francisco,  Calif.;  the 
Sierra  Club,  San  Francisco,  Calif.:  the  Colorado  Mountain  Club,  Denver,  Colo.;  the 
Nature  Study  Club  of  Indiana,  Indianapolis,  Ind.;  the  Field  Museum  of  Chicago 
Chicago,  111.;  the  Camp  Fire  Club,  Chicago,  111.;  the  Prairie  Club,  Chicago,  111.:  the 
Geographic  Society  of  Philadelphia,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  the  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History,  New  York;  the  Camp  Fire  Club  of  America,  New  York  City;  the 
Boone  and  Crockett  Club,  New  York  City. 

Representatives  of  important  organizations  in  New  England,  New  York,  and  else- 
where are  present  here,  in  person,  notwithstanding  the  short  notice. 

We  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  the  complete  conservation  of  the  national.. parks  and 
monuments  constitutes  a  fundamental  policy  upon  which  no  authority  short  of  Con- 
gress is  entitled  to  pass. 

We  believe  that  to  depute  the  power  to  grant  any  commercial  use  of  these  reserva- 
tions is  a  congressional  reversal  of  this  half -century-old  policy  which  Congress  at  the 
last,  excessively  busy,  session  passed  in  the  water' power  bill  through  sheer  inadvert- 
ence; and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  same  Congress  at  the  present  session  to  repair  this 
manifest  error  by  restoring  the  national  parks  and  monuments  to  their  former  statps. 

We  believe  that  continuance  of  national  parks  and  monuments  under  the  authority 
of  any  commission  having  the  power  to  grant  commercial  leases  amounts  to  a  standing 
invitation  by  Congress  itself  to  come  in  and  commercialize  the  parks,  a  position  cer- 
tainly never  contemplated  by  Congress  at  its  last  session. 

The  unique  distinction  of  American  national  parks  as  examples  of  primitive  nature 
is  more  nighly  appreciated  abroad,  where  there  are  and  can  be  no  such  examples 
than  at  home,  but  pur  own  people  are  now  learning  their  real  significance  with  great 
rapidity.  The  national  parks  have  taken  a  wonderful  hold  on  the  imagination  of  the 
people  West  as  well  as  East.  I  allege  with  confidence,  from  my  personal  experience 
in  spreading  the  news  of  the  national  parks'  danger,  that  western  people  (I  mean 
people  in  the  Rockies  and  west  of  therrO  are  responding,  in  full  proportion  to  population 
as  freely  and  as  enthusiastically  as  eastern  people. 

Also,  the  evidence  is  growing  week  by  week  that  national  parks  States  in  the  West 
are  generally  beginning  to  perceive,  as  some  Western  States  already  have  perceived, 


128        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL,  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

that  national  parks,  completely  conserved,  can  be  made  to  pay  greater  dollars-and- 
cents  returns  to  the  State  than  their  waters  could  in  irrigation  and  power. 

I  quote  the  Montana  Record  Herald,  in  its  editorials  of  November  2  and  16,  and  the 
Denver  Times,  of  December  30,  as  evidence,  and  will  be  pleased  to  send  clippings  to 
any  who  desire  to  see  them. 

I  am  convinced  that,  if  you  will  hold  our  national  parks  safe  from  commercial 
invasion  for  five  years  more,  as  the  times  are  moving,  we  defenders  in  the  cast  will  all 
be  out  of  business.  The  West  herself  will  be  her  own  most  valiant  defender  of  the  in- 
tegrity of  her  national  parks,  and  not  for  reason  of  sentiment,  but  because  they  pay. 
Give  the  parks  a  chance.  Their  fruition  time  has  only  now  arrived. 

Again,  and  emphatically,  the  National  Parks  Association  wishes  to  go  on  record  as 
strongly  opposed  to  the  suggestion  made  here  to-day  that  this  bill  of  amendment 
(H.  R.  14760)  be  qualified  by  restoring  to  the  authority  of  Congress  only  the  national 
parks  and  monuments  as  at  present  constituted. 

To  do  this  inevitably  will  create,  at  some  future  time,  two  classes  of  national  park — 
the  older  ones  exempt  from  water  power,  except,  of  course,  at  the  discretion  of  Congress, 
and  new  parks  open  to  water  power  at  the  discretion  of  the  Water  Power  Commission. 

I  record  our  earnest  protest.  If  certain  areas  in  proposed  new  parks  are  more  val- 
uable to  the  commercial  development  of  this  nation  than  to  the  national  parks  sys- 
tem, by  all  means  let  us  not  include  them  in  new  national  parks  at  all.  We  all  want 
to  develop  America.  Let  us  cut  such  areas  out  of  the  bills  for  new  parks  before  offering 
these  bills  to  Congress. 

The  National  Parks  Association  stands  for  the  complete  conservation  of  all  national 
parks,  even  at  the  expense,  if  it  should  unhappily  become  necessary,  of  any  enlarge- 
ment of  the  system. 

RESOLUTIONS. 
^ 

These  are  merely  examples  of  hundreds  of  resolutions  from  organizations  of  many 
kinds,  which  are  reaching  us  continually  from  every  part  of  the  country.  There  are 
also  scores  of  petitions. 

RESOLUTIONS  PASSED  BY  BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  GENERAL  FEDERATION  OF  WOMEN'S 
CLUBS,    SEPTEMBER    1C,   1920,    WASHINGTON,    D.    C. 

Resolved,  That  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs  heartily  indorses  the 
congressional  policy  of  the  last  48  years  for  preserving  our  national  parks  in  a  state 
of  absolute  nature. 

That  it  considers  our  national  parks  invaluable  national  musuems  of  nature  which 
it  is  the  Nation's  duty  to  hold  untouched  for  the  study  and  enjoyment  of  posterity. 

That  it  protests  against  the  inclusion  of  national  parks  and  monuments  in  the 
provisions  of  the  Federal  water  power  act  of  June,  1920,  and  requests  Congress  to 
amend  that  act  so  as  to  exclude  these  reservations  from  its  authority. 

That  it  protests  earnestly  against  the  granting  of  any  irrigation  or  other  privilege 
in  the  Yellowstone  or  any  other  national  park  except  those  customary  and  necessary 
for  the  comfort  and  convenience  of  visitors. 

That  it  authorizes  the  president  of  the  general  federation  to  take  such  action  as 
she  deems  necessary  to  carry  out  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  these  resoultions. 

RESOLUTIONS    BY   THE    AMERICAN    ASSOCIATION    FOR    THE    ADVANCEMENT    OF    SCIENCE. 

Whereas  in  recognition  of  the  unique  character  and  value  of  our  national  parks  and 
monuments  to  present  and  future  generations,  24  successive  Congresses  have  wisely 
resisted  attempts  to  commercialize  them  and  have  preserved  them  inviolate  for 
nearly  half  a  century, 

Whereas  certain  private  interests  are  now  seeking  to  secure  special  privileges  in  these 
areas,  which  if  granted  will  seriously  interfere  with  their  true  purpose  and  undoubt- 
edly result  in  the  entire  commercialization  of  these  unique  national  museums: 
Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science  request 
Members  of  Congress  first  to  amend  the  water  power  act  so  that  it  shall  not  apply 
to  national  parks  and  monuments,  and  that  their  full  control  be  restored  to  Congress; 
and  second,  to  reject  all  present  and  future  measures  which  propose  to  surrender  any 
part  of  these  national  parks  and  monuments  to  private  control  or  to  divert  them  in 
any  way  from  their  original  and  exclusive  purpose,  the  preservation  for  all  future 
generations  of  unique  representations  of  natural  conditions  such  as  exist  in  no  other 
part  of  the  world. 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        129 

RESOLUTIONS    BY   THE    ECOLOGICAL    SOCIETY    OF   AMERICA. 

Whereas  the  United  States  ( 'oiijjrivss  for  nearly  half  a  century  has  loyally  and  devotedly 
protected  the  national  parks  and  monuments  from  encroachments  by  private  inter- 
ests, and 

Whereas  a  provision  in  the  recently  enacted  water  power  bill  would  remove  the 
national  parks  and  monuments  from  the  control  of  Congress;  Therefore,  be  it 
Resolved,  That  the  Ecological  Society  of  America  approve  the  measure  now  pending 
to  remove  these  from  the  control  of  the  Federal  Commission  and  return  them  to  the 
control  of  Congress:  And  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  this  society  urges  upon  Members  of  Congress  the  rejection  of  all 
measures  and  especially  the  Falls  River  Basin  bill  (H.  R.  12466),  and  the  Yellow- 
stone Lake  Dam  measure  (S.  4529),  and  any  and  all  other  bills  of  similar  purpose, 
providing  for  any  encroachments  whatever  upon  the  national  parks  and  monuments 
or  limiting  anywhere  their  complete  and  unmodified  preservation  for  the  use  of  the 
whole  people  in  this  and  future  generations:  Be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  sent  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  and  the 
President  of  the  Senate,  and  also  to  the  members  of  the  appropriate  committees, 
urging  them  to  protect  the  national  parks  and  monuments  against  all  encroachments  • 
by  private  interests. 

RESOLUTION    BY   THE    COUNCIL    OP    YALE    UNIVERSITY. 

Resolved,  That  the  Council  of  Yale  University  joins  with  the  Connecticut  Forestry 
Association  in  favoring  proper  amendment  of  the  water  power  act  exempting  from 
its  provisions  the  national  parks  and  monuments  which  are  now  open  to  entry  for 
water  power  development  on  the  same  terms  as  the  national  forests  and  other  public 
lands;  and  in  favoring  further  amendments  which-  will  prohibit  other  commercial. 
uses  of  the  national  parks,  as  grazing  and  mining. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

ROBERT  STERLING  YARD, 
Executive  Secretary  of  the  National  Parks  Association. 


LETTER    SUBMITTED    BY    MR.  HARRIS    A.    REYNOLDS. 

Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Select  Committee  on  Water  Power, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  people  of  New  England  are  greatly  aroused  on  this  matter  of  pro- 
tecting the  national  parks  and  monuments  from  commercialization.     A  large  numbe 
of  the  leading  public  spirited  organizations  in  New  England  have  organized  them- 
selves into  a  conference  for  the  special  purpose  of  opposing  measures  which  would 
in  any  way  open  the  national  parks  to  commercialization. 

The  conference  strongly  is  in  favor  of  H.  R.  14760,  believing  that  the  people  are 
nearer  to  the  control  of  the  parks  in  Congress  than  in  the  Water  Power  Commission. 

Not  only  do  we  wish  to  push  the  amendment  to'the  water-power  act,  but,  since  the 
Smith  bill  has  been  discussed  to-day,  we  wish  to  register  our  unalterable  opposition 
to  any  dams  within  the  national  parks.  That  these  are  absolutely  incompatible  with 
scenic  conservation  is  very  thoroughly  demonstrated  by  the  mud  flats  around  Jackson 
Lake  south  of  the  Yellowstone  National  Park.  It  is  all  camouflage  for  the  promoters 
of  schemes  for  building  dams  in  the  national  parks,  where  the  water  will  be  drawn 
off  during  the  tourist  season,  to  say  that  such  a  lake  would  beautify  the  park.  It  is 
an  impossibility  to  have  a  beautiful  lake  with  a  mud  border. 

The  only  possible  way  in  which  the  commercial  inserests  and  the  park  interests 
can  meet  on  common  ground,  many  of  us  believe,  is  to  have  Congress  create  some  form 
of  commission  which  will  have  power  to  determine  the  boundary  lines  of  the  parks, 
which  will  make  it  possible  to  exclude  areas  from  the  parks  which  are  evidently  bet- 
ter suited  for  commercialism  than  for  recreation  and  to  include  any  other  areas  better 
suited  for  recreation  than  for  commercialism. 

When  the  parks  were  established,  most  of  them  were  lined  out  in  rectangular  lines 
with  little  regard  for  the  topography  or  for  the  quality  of  the  lands  that  were  being 
included.  And  as  the  surrounding  country  becomes  more  populated  the  need  for. 

29414—21 9 


130        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

the  use  of  the  natural  resources  of  the  parks  has  become  greater  and  greater.  But 
until  we  can  establish  the  lines  beyond  which  no  commercial  interest  can  go,  the  only 
safe  position  is  "hands  off  the  national  parks,"  and,  so  far  as  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land are  concerned,  that  will  be  the  policy  until  sufficient  evidence  is  produced  to 
show  that  the  best  interests  of  the  country  as  a  whole  can  be  served  by  letting  down 
the  bars.  We  are  firmly  convinced  that  that  time  will  never  come. 

HARRIS  A.  REYNOLDS, 
Representing  the  New  England  Conference  for  the  Protection  of  the  National 

Parks  and  Monuments  and  the  Massachusetts  Forestry  Association. 


LETTER    SUBMITTED    BY    MR.  JOHN    J.  HARRIS. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  10,  1921. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  ESCH, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce, 

House  of  Representatives. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  ESCH:  I  was  present  the  other  day  at  the  hearings  before  your  com- 
mittee on  the  subject  of  amend  ing  n-rtain  provisions  of  the  power  bill.  I  desired  to 
be  heard  before  the  committee  at  that  time,  but  it  could  not  be  so  arranged. 

I  beg  now  to  present  herev.it  h  a  copy  of  the  Water  Power  Bulletin,  issued  by  the 
Water  Power  League  of  America,  for  the  month  of  Xo\  ember.  I'.H'O.  Your  attention 
is" called  to  the  article  on  pages  :'.  and  1  of  the  publication.  I  am  also  submitting  a 
pamphlet  issued  by  the  Yellowstone  Irrigation  Association,  of  Livingston,  Mont.,  for 
the  month  of  November,  1920,  with  relation  to  storage  of  flood  waters,  etc. 

As  both  of  these  articles  have  a  vital  bearing  on" the  subject  under  consideration, 
I  am  asking  that  they  be  printed  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  hearings. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  J.  HARRIS, 
President  Big  Horn  Cunyon  Jmynlinn  d-  I'oircr  Co.,  of  Hardin,  Mont. 

(The  articles  referred  to  by  Mr.  Harris  are  as  follows:) 

FINANCING  WATER  POWERS  WITH  FEDERAL  ASSISTANCE. 

{By  John  J.  Harris,  president  of  the  Big  Horn  Canyon  Irrigation  &  Power  Co.;  Hardin,  Mont.] 

If  we  are  to  have  only  15,000,000  of  our  100,000,000  water  horsepower  put  on  the 
*oad  to  construction  within  the  next  five  years,  $2,250,000,000  must  be  made  avail- 
able. This  will  average  approximately  $150  per  horsepower,  construction  cost. 
Even  the  most  optimistic  do  not  expect  this  amount  to  be  raised  by  private  agency. 
There  must  be  another  means  available,  if  we  are  to  have  only  partial  development. 
Where  is  this  money  to  come  from?  There  is  only  one  answer  to  this  question,  and 
that  is,  from  the  National  Government.  Since  the  waterways  with  which  it  deals 
are  interstate,  the  question  must  be  approached  from  that  viewpoint. 

Recently,  the  Water  Power  League  of  America  held  a  convention  at  Washington, 
D.  C.,  and  requested  expressions  on  the  financing  of  power  projects  under  the  new 
la\v,  Hon.  Secretary  Payne,  of  Department  of  the  Interior,  made  the  only  response 
on  this  subject  which  offered  any  hope,  when  he  obligingly  indicated  "that  a  power 
license  secured  from  the  Government  would  help  finance."  This  is  quite  true,  yet 
the  legal  restrictions  of  the  license  will  also  deter  capital  from  going  into  the  water- 
power  business  as  long  as  there  remains  other  business  in  the  land  free  from  such 
restrictions,  to  which  investors  may  be  attracted. 

Not  much  of  restriction  or  of  license  is  imposed  on  the  automobile  business,  yet  it 
is  among  the  largest  and  the  most  remunerative  in  the  land,  and  meets  with  satisfaction 
on  the  part  of  both  the  Government  and  the  people.  Possibly,  if  such  business 
carried  a  restrictive  license  conducive  to  the  employment  of  high-salaried  and  tech- 
nical legal  help,  to  observe  the  legal  restrictions  (as  is  required  in  the  income  tax 
law),  the  automobile  business  wouid  not  be  so  great  and  remunerative. 

Even  to-day  one  may  venture  into  the  business  of  mining  coal  without  any  legal 
restrictions,  yet  water  power  must  find  its  greatest  market  in  competition  with  coal 
and  oil.  Our  national  hope  and  aim  is  that  our  wasteful  and  destructive  flood  waters 
may  be  harnessed  to  in  a  large  degree  take  the  place  of  both:  yet  by  law  we  have 
placed  the  restrictions  on  the  wrong  foot — we  have  placed  them  not  upon  the  coal 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.       131 

which  by  use  is  consumed,  but  upon  water,  the  substitute  for  coal,  which  without 
being  used  will  continue  not  only  to  run  to  waste,  but  to  work  destruction. 

When  we  reflect  upon  the  importance  of  this  waste  water  and  the  countless  pur- 
poses that  it  can  be  made  to  serve,  and  the  vital  bearing  which  water-power  develop- 
ment has  upon  our  national  well-being,  we  wonder  why  there  was  not  written  into 
the  law  for  each  word  of  restriction  a  word  of  financial  encouragement.  The  answer 
is  simple:  It  was  due  to  lack  of  understanding  of  the  art  on  the  part  of  many  of  our 
statesmen  at  the  time. 

The  question  of  power  development  ranges  from  that  of  controlling  the  raindrop, 
from  its  source  to  tidewater  and  beyond  to  development  of  power  and  for  almost 
every  conceivable  purpose.  Chief  among  these  are: 

The  storing  of  flood  waters  at  their  source  and  elsewhere,  to  boost  the  maximum 
power  development  at  low-water  stage. 

The  irrigation  of  arid  and  semiarid  lands,  of  which  Montana  alone  has  1,000,000 
acres  available. 

The  reduction  of  sediment  flow  in  the  rivers  caused  by  reduction  of  the  floods 
themselves  and  incidentally  reducing  dredging,  dike,  and  levee  work. 

The  regulation  of  stream 'flow  throughout  the  year  and  incidentally  aiding  inland 
navigation. 

The  electrification  of  steam  railways  and  the  great  reduction  of  cost  in  operation, 
greatly  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  railroads  without  increasing  the  cost. 

The  saving  of  millions  of  tons  of  coal  and  millions  of  gallons  of  oil  annually. 

The  manufacture  of  nitrates  for  fertilizer  and  for  explosives,  by  hydroelectric 
process,  for  commercial  and  national  defense  purposes. 

The  saving  of  farm  lands  that  are  constantly  being  cut  away  by  flood  waters. 

The  reduction  of  ice  gorge  troubles. 

The  treatment  of  ores  electrically  wrhich  otherwise  could  not  be  made  commercially 
workable. 

The  economic  manufacture  of  paper. 

The  creating  by  irrigation  of  farm  lands  for  the  coal  miner  and  others  who  might 
wish  to  engage  in  agriculture. 

In  support  of  some  of  the  above  points  I  make  the  following,  merely  for  illustration 
(and  there  are  many  projects  of  a  similar  nature  in  the  United  States),  to  wit: 

Our  company  has  planned  a  water  power  and  irrigation  project  in  the  mouth  of 
Big  Horn  Canyon,  near  Hardin,  Mont.  The  plan  calls  for  a  dam  480  feet  high,  which 
will  create  a  reservoir  57  miles  in  length  to  store  flood  water  for  irrigating  100,000  acres 
.  of  land  and  develop  (on  a  load  factor  of  50  per  cent)  over  200  000  horsepower.  The 
power  will  be  used  for  the  operation  of  1,500  miles  of  transcontinental  steam  railroads 
which  can  be  reached  over  a  transmission  distance  not  exceeding  200  miles  from  the 
power  house.  The  project  will  cost  $25,000,000.  The  dam  and  reservoir  will  store 
40,000,000,000  cubic  feet  of  water,  of  which  volume  30.000,000.000  cubic  feet  will 
b  flood  water  stored,  to  increase  the  low  flow  of  the  river  from  1,200  cubic  second-feet 
to  4,000  cubic  second-feet.  By  the  same  operation  flood  water  will  be  reduced  from 
45.000  second-feet  to  8,000  second-feet,  the  flow  averaging  throughout  the  year  from 
4,000  second-feet  to  8, 000  second-feet.  Incidentally,  this  operation  will  act  to  give  us 
complete  control  of  flood  water  over  a  drainage  area  of  21, 000  square  miles,  or  6  percent 
of  all  the  water  which  empties  into  the  Mississippi  River  from  its  western  drainage 
area  or  that  Avhich  passes  a  line  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  River  from  Canada 
to  the  Gulf  of  Mexi co .  By  this  one  power  proj ect  there  will  b e  taken  from  the  Bi g  Horn . 
Yellowstone,  Missouri,  and  Mississippi  Rivers  annually  a  volume  of  flood  water  5 
miles  wide,  5  feet  deep,  and  60  miles  long.  Again,  by  this  same  operation,  it  will  be 
observed  to  what  extent  the  flow  of  the  above-named  rivers  will  be  regulate'd  for 
increased  navigation,  and  last,  but  not  least,  what  the  regularity  of  flow  will  mean 
by  way  of  preventing  sediment  flow,  for  it  is  only  at  high  water  or  flood  stage  that 
river  banks  are  cut  away  and  carried  off  as  sediment,  to  repose  in  the  bottom  of  the 
sluggish  flowing  streams,  such  as  the  Missouri  and  the  Mississippi  Rivers,  and  there 
it  remains  to  reduce  the  size  of  the  channels,  or  until  it  is  removed  by  dredges.  As 
an  alternative,  the  river  banks  are  raised  by  dikes  and  levees  such  as  are  located  at 
New  Orleans,  where  the  city  lies  40  feet  below  the  river  level. 

The  State  and  National  Governments  have  already  spent  $180,000,000  in  this  kind 
of  work  without  having  contributed  1  cent  in  effort  to  prevent  flood  water  or  sediment 
flow  at  its  source,  and  this  situation  is  as  bad  to-day  as  it  ever  has  been  in  the  past. 
Does  it  not  seem  that  the  National  Government  should,  in  its  own  interest,  give  water 
power  developers  a  better  opportunity  than  one  hedged  about  entirely  by  restrictive 
laws?  • 


132        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT. 

Approximately  30,000,000.000  cubic  feet  of  flood  water  will  be  stored  in  Yellowstone 
!Lake  for  irrigation  purposes  only,  if  the  Government  will  permit  the  plans  of  that 
project  to  be  carried  out. 

Again,  it  has  been  recorded  that  by  water  power  electrification  the  Chicago,  Mil- 
waukee <k  St.  Paul  Railroad  operating  from  Harlowton,  Mont.,  to  a  point  near  the 
Pacific  coast,  last  year  netted  a  saving  of  300,000  tons  of  coal  and  40,000,000  gallons 
of  oil.  Would  it  not  be  to  our  national  interest  to  encourage  power  development 
so  that  more  roads  may  lie  electrified  and  more  flood  waters  be  converted  to  use? 

It  has  often  been  said  that  the  railroads  would  find  the  money  to  build  water  powers 
with  which  to  electrify  when  the  need  grew  urgent.  In  the  past  nine  years  I  have 
come  in  contact  with  many  of  the  heads  of  the  various  railway  systems  and  with  others 
concerned  in  the  financing  of  roads.  They  all  take  the  position  that  it  would  have 
been  to  their  interests  to  have  electrified  as  far  back  as  10  years  ago,  if  money  had 
boon  available.  They  will  toll  you  now  that  money  is  not  to  be  had  for  this  purpose, 
-dless  of  its  merits. 

Should  you  suggest  to  the  banker  and  the  financier  (who  to-dav  has  no  money  for 
power  development)  that  the  money  in  part  should  be  made  available  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, they  will  tell  you  that  while  they  do  not  have  the  money  to  invest  they  would 
not  advise  legislation  making  Government  money  available,  for  the  reason  that  with 
it  would  follow  governmental  rosl  rid  ions  such  as  have  como  with  the  Federal  farm 
loan  ar-t.  fictions  would  operate  against  all  the  good  which  might  otherwise 

be  obtained  fron 

Personally,  I  am  unalterably  opposed  to  the  proposition  of  Government  aid,  in 
the  sense  that  it  would  carry  with  il  a  Control  and  dictation  over  and  above  that  which 
is  ordinarily  extended  to  the  private  bond  purchaser,  but  I  am  in  favor  of  an  amend- 
ment to  the  power  bill  which  will  permit  the  ( lovornmo.nt  to  invest  in  the  bonds  of  a 
promising  water-power  development  to  the  extent  of  50  per  cent  of  their  cost,  con- 
ditiom-d  that  tho  other  ">0  per  cent  is  made  available  from  private  <y«-  other  sources, 
and  this  only  when  assured  by  competent  authority  that  a  project  is  feasible  and 
practicable  from  every  viewpoint.  Such  amendment  should,  of  course,  carry  with  it 
an  ''optional  clause"  leaving  ii  discretionary  with  the  power  developer  to  use  or  not 
to  use  such  moii 

This  pr,>p:»--iii  :iited  for  several  very  g-""l  rouson^.  to  wit: 

I.  That  nine  years  of  experience  irained  in  advancing  but  a  single  meritorious 
project  i  has  pi  ,,•.  l>«.\-,,nd  <)iiesli->n.  thai  1'Y  leral  aid  must  and  should  be 

dnd  if  wiiier  po\vors  are  to  be  buili.  since  oilier  money  is  not  available.  Kmi- 
iii. in  bank*  finnnciers  have  repeatedly  assured  me  in  the  past  "that 

if  water-powor ;  "/as  had.  the  money  to  build  our  project  would  be  available." 

After  the  li  \v:i*  had  I  was  '  >  retire,  as  no  money  jrta  expected  for 

some  time  for  any  project.  There  is  no  authority  in  the  1'iiii"  I  81  itea  to-day  to 
advise  where  money  can  be  obtained  for  power  development,  regardless  of  the  market, 
or  the  promise  of  a  market  for  the  power. 

•2.  There  is  the  very  best  authority  in  the  land  available  to  assure  a  dmenad  for 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  of  power  annually,  if  the  same  was  to  be  had. 

3.  Large  water  powers  require  years  to  build.  Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  start 
building  years  in  advance  of  the  time  when  it  is  expected  to  have  them  completed 
for  use.  In  this  respect,  they  occupy  the  same  position  as  the  railroads  have  held  in 
the  building  up  of  the  country.  The  roads  had  to  come  first. 

! .  By  reason  of  the  national  importance  of  water  power  and  its  kindred  developments 
it  would  be  good  business  for  the  Government  to  enact  legislation  extending  financial 
aid  for  suchT  without  adding  much,  if  anything,  to  the  taxes.  It  might  well  apply 
the  annual  ''rivers  and  harbors  appropriations"  for  this  purpose  for  a  time,  at  least, 
or  until  its  power  bonds  would  begin  to  bring  returns.  It  might  go  easy  with  its 
"United  States  Reclamation  Service  appropriations,"  as  there  would  be  many  private 
irrigation  projects  connected  with  power  developments  that  would  be  built  to  in  a 
large  measure  take  the  place  of  projects  delayed  by  lack  of  United  States  Reclamation 
Service  funds.  There  are  numerous  other  appropriations  that  might  be  dispensed 
with,  and  the  money  appropriated  for  investment  by  the  Government  in  this  greater 
and  more  urgent  field  of  national  activity,  and  where  the  return  of  the  principal  with 
interest  would  be  assured  beyond  question,  which  is  not  the  case  with  most  appro- 
priations. Most  of  them  are  made  to  be  expended  and  to  remain  expended;  for 
instance,  such  as  money  spent  in  the  building  of  dikes,  levees,  and  dredging  streams, 
and  these  offer  only  temporary  relief  after  all. 

5.  Why  not  effect  an  appropriation  amendment  that  at  once  makes  for  a  secure 
investment  in  the  building  of  permanent  water  power  and  irrigation  works?  Such 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE   FEDERAL  WATER-POWER   ACT.        133 

would  develop  cheap  power,  for  which  there  is  to-day  a  demand  even  greater  than 
are  the  losses  from  floods,  due  to  lack  of  these  developments. 

Why  not  in  this  manner  encourage  to  the  utmost  the  reclamation  by  irrigation  of 
millions  of  acres  of  land  attendant  with  power  development,  and  by  this  single  oper- 
ation secure  for  the  Nation  the  countless  other  benefits  which  limited  vision  and 
space  will  not  permit  me  to  dwell  upon? 

Why  not,  in  a  few  words,  adopt  the  policy  "That  an  ounce  of  prevention  is  worth 
a  pound  of  cure."  and  thereby  create  a  national  asset  a  hundredfold  greater  than 
the  investment?  From  an  economic  standpoint  such  a  policy  would  surpass  any- 
thing which  has  yet  been  attempted.  Let  private  initiative,  with  Government  en- 
couragement, have  full  sway  in  the  building  of  that  which  means  more  to  the  Gov- 
ernment by  far  than  it  means  to  any  set  of  individuals. 


THE    LAKE    YELLOWSTONE   PROJECT. 

[By  the  Yellowstone  Irrigation  Association,  Livingston,  Mont.] 

Reams  of  adverse  publicity  have  been  circulated  against  the  proposed  project  for 
the  construction  of  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Yellowstone  in  the  National  park. 
Perhaps  90  per  cent  of  this  criticism  has  been  advanced  by  persons  or  organizations 
who  have  no  real  conception  of  the  scheme.  They  do  not  know  what  the  project 
really  contemplates,  why  it  is  necessary,  or  what  the  effect  will  be  after  it  is  construc- 
ted. ' 

In  the  interest  of  a  full,  fair,  and  thorough  understanding  of  the  matter  this  article 
is  prepared.  No  statement  is  herein  made  that  can  not  be  amply  supported  by 
engineering  data,  and  no  conclusions  are  drawn  except  they  are  so'fully  warranted 
by  existing  conditions  to  admit  of  no  argument. 

Two  hundred  million  dollars  lost  in  Montana. — The  money  loss  to  the  people  of 
Montana  due  to  climatic  conditions  during  the  past  four  years  has  been  well  over 
$200,000.000.  This  gigantic  sum  is  the  difference  between  what  was  received  for 
crops  and  what  would  nave  been  received  had  the  rainfall  in  the  growing  season  been 
sufficient  to  produce  just  an  average  crop  plus  the  sum  that  was  sent  out  of  the  State 
for  stock  feed  last  winter.  It  is  more  than  $300  each  for  every  man.  woman,  and 
child  in  the  State.  Probably  no  other  State  in  the  Union  could  stand  such  a  drain 
on  top  of  the  drain  for  liberty  bond,  war  relief,  and  excessive  live  stock  losses  suffered 
in  1919  and  1920  and  survive  a  general  and  wholesale  bankruptcy. 

Reclamation  to  insure  future . — Thoughtful  persons  everywhere,  realize  that  if  this 
•condition  is  to  be  obviated  in  the  future,  if  Montana  is  to  come  back  into  its  own, 
and  be  a  really  great  State,  the  change  must  be  worked  through  a  great  extension 
of  the  area  under  irrigation.  Reclamation  on  a  grand  scale  is  the  only  insurance 
against  another  disastrous  drought. 

The  Yellowstone  River. — The  Yellowstone  River  drains  Lake  Yellowstone  in  the 
Yellowstone  National  Park  and  fairly  tumbles  down  through  a  rugged  canyon  in  the 
park  and  out  into  a  valley  in  Montama.  For  470  miles  it  then  flows  through  Montana 
and  just  over  the  line  into  North  Dakota  where  it  joins  the  Missouri  on  another  1,700- 
mile  journey  by  way  of  St.  Louis  and  the  Mississippi  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

Valley  and  benches. — The  valley  of  the  Yellowstone,  from  1  to  10  miles  wide,  is  one 
•of  the  most  fertile,  and  under  irrigation  one  of  the  most  productive  areas  in  the  north- 
west. On  either  side  it  is  flanked  by  expansive  benches.  These  benches  extend 
back  from  the  river  as  far  as  40  miles  and  are  even  more  fertile  and  under  irrigation 
more  productive  than  the  valley  itself. 

Tributaries. — The  river  after  it  leaves  the  lake  is  fed  by  a  number  of  important 
tributaries.  Two  of  these,  the  Lamar  and  the  Gardiner,  join  it  while  still  in  Yellow- 
stone Park.  The  Shields.  Boulder,  Stillwater,  Clarks  Fork,  Big  Horn,  Powder,  and 
Tongue  Rivers,  together  with  dozens  of  lesser  tributaries,  affect  a  confluence  and 
add  to  its  volume  on  the  journey  down  through  Montana.  These  tributary  streams 
like  the  Yellowstone  rise  in  high  mountain  ranges,  emerge  from  rugged  canyons,  and 
flow  for  many  miles  each  through  valleys  bordered  by  bench  lands  before  they  reach 
the  parent  river. 

Irrigated  acreage. — In  the  main  Yellowstone  valley  and  on  the  bench  lands  border- 
ing it,  there  is  nowT  under  irrigation  by  canals  diverted  from  the  river  something  over 
250,000  acres.  This  includes  land  to  be  served  by  canals  now  under  construction. 
About  an  equal  area  has  been  reclaimed  along  the  various  tributaries  by  canals  taken 
from  them . 


134        PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  /  CT. 

Irrigable  acreage.  —  There  still  remains  more  than  1,000.000  acres  of  fertile  land  that 
could  yet  be  put  under  water  by  gravity  canals  or  pumping  plants  from  the  river. 
provided  there  was  a  sufficient  volume  of  flow  during  irrigation  season  to  serve  such 
a  demand. 

Water  shortage.  —  There  is  not  during  the  irrigation  season  sufficient  water  to  supply 
this  need  nor  any  considerable  part  of  it.  Indeed,  in  seasons  where  the  flow  is  below 
normal  there  is  not  a  sufficient  volume  of  Avater  to  care  for  the  land  already  under 
irrigation.  In  1919,  for  instance,  the  river  was  at  a  minimum  of  flowage.  Between 
Columbus  and  Forsyth  23  irrigation  systems  tap  the  river.  For  only  2  out  of  the  23 
was  there  a  full  water  supply  throughout  the  season.  Several  canals  received  no 
water  at  all  during  the  latter  part  of  July  and  all  of  August.  According  to  records 
kept  by  Mr.  B.  C.  Lillis.  a  civil  engineer,  residing  at  Billings,  the  total  crop  loss 
because  of  this  water  shortage  under  the  23  projects  was  about  $4,000.000. 

To  be  sure  there  was  some  water  passing  the  head  gates  of  all  these  canals.  It 
could  not  be  diverted  into  the  canals  borar.se  the  floors  of  the  various  bead  works 
were  in  all  cases  somewhat  above  the  bed  of  the  stream.  Had  it  been  possible  to 
divert  all  of  the  water  needed,  the  river  would  have  been  bone  dry  at  Miles  City. 
In  that  event  the  great  Lower  Yellowstone  project  constructed  to  reclaim  nearly 
60.000  acres  in  the  Lower  Yellowstone  Valley  of  Montana  and  North  Dakota  would 
have  been  without  water.  hcrarsc  th"  tributaries  joining  tin-  river  below  Forsyth 
contributed  little  or  no  water  drring  th<-  hut  CM-  p:irt  of  -July,  all  of  August,  and  a  part 
of  September.  Solely  becaii.se  21  projects  between  Columbus  and  Forsyth  hud  little 
or  no  supply,  there  was  water  enough  passed  down  the  channel  to  serve  the  30,000 
acres  actually  under  irrigation  on  the  Lower  Yollowstone  project  and  still  permit 
a  limited  quantity  to  pass  its  head  works  and  flow  into  the  Missouri. 

n  ill  rcrnr.  —  Of  course,  these  periods  of  water  shortage  and  severe  crop  loss 


will  recur  again  and  again.     They  :  \pected  to  recur  with  greater  frequency 

and  increased  severity  in  the  futun  I  h.-  urea  under  irrigation  along  the  river 

is  being  constantly  increased  with  a  proportionately  heavier  demand  for  \vator.     This 
is  even  more  true  of  the  tributaries.     The  time  must  soon  come  when  these  tributaries 
will  contribute  little  <>r  no  \vator  during  irrigation  season.     With  possibly  on"  or  two 
exceptions  there  is  sufficient  irrigable  hurl  in  their  own  valleys,  when  fully  devel 
to  use  all  the  flow,  including  such  Hood  R  ;n  be  conserved  by  reservoirs.     The 

Yellowstone  musi  more  and  n.ore  depend  oil  ITS  main  source  of  the  supply,  Yellow- 
stone Lake. 

Floods.  —  The  volume  of  flow  in  the  Yoli,iw>i,>ne  1  liver  is  26  times  as  much  duiin.u 
the  flood  period  in  the  spring  as  it  is  dr  tan  .-eason  in  the  late  summer. 

During  .\jay  and  the  e  irl  v  p.ut  of  June  i  •  hat  have  accumulated  through  the 

winter  months  in  the  mountain  r-.invon-  iiug  the  source  of  the  stream  and  its 

tributaries  are  rapidly  moll  ing  and  running  oi'i1.     The  river  becomes  a  veritable  torrent. 
This  enormous  volume  of  water  runs  V;t  only  is  there  a  waste  of  water  and 

energy,  but  the  raging  torrent  does  a  damage  that  runs  into  the  hundreds  of  thousands. 
even  millions  of  d:>M. 

Crops  are  flooded,  farm  land  is  eroded,  roads,  bridges,  and  buildings  are  washed 
away,  railroad  embankments  are  cut  through,  and  towns  are  inundated.  There  is 
not  infrequently  loss  of  life.  These  floods  have  taken  such  a  toll,  at  some  one  or  more 
points  along  the  500  miles  length  of  the  valley,  almost  everv  year  since  settlement 
came  in  fort  v-odd  yea's  ago.  A  careful  compilation  of  the  damage  done  in  1918,  in 
which  season  the  flood  was  unusually  large,  puts  the  total  figures  at  more  than 
$2,000,000.  This  is  not  guesswork,  but  an  actual  inventory  of  "damage  done.  No 
complete  record  of  the  loss  in  any  other  season  is  available.  (  'onservative  men  are  of 
the  opinion  that  in  10  years  it  has  been  nearly  or  quite  $5,000,000.  A  flood  loss  that 
averages  half  a  million  dollars  per  year  is  a  direct  tax  of  $5  per  annum  for  each  of  the/ 
100,000  persons  who  make  their  homes  along  the  Yellowstone. 

Problem  easily  solved.  —  From  an  engineering  and  construction  standpoint  it  is  a 
comparatively  simple  matter  to  solve  the  problem  of  floods  in  spring  and  water 
shortage  in  summer.  A  simple  concrete  dam,  that  will  cost  less  than  half  a  million 
dollars,  will  hold  back  the  floods  and  prevent  an  average  annual  damage  equal  to  its 
total  cost.  It  will  hold  in  reserve  sufficient  precious  water  to  make  good  every  water 
right  along  the  river,  and  prevent  another  §4,000,000  crop  loss  on  the  irrigated  land. 
It  will  store  sufficient,  additional  water  to  make  possible  the  reclamation  of  600,000 
additional  arid  but  fertile  acres. 

Millions  a  year  or  nothing.  —  The  average  value  of  crop  production  under  the  Huntley 
project,  which  is  perhaps  a  fair  sample  of  irrigated  land  in  Montana,  was  S39  in  1918 
and  $49  in  1919.  Add  the  items  together,  flood  damage  saved  —  present  irrigated 
crops  made  secure  —  and  crop  values  on  land  that  may  be  reclaimed.  Twenty-five- 


PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT.        135 

or  thirty  million  dollars  a  year  added  to  the  economic  wealth  of  the  State  and  Nation. 
Of  course,  all  this  can  not  be  realized  at  once  even  by  the  construction  of  the  dam. 
It  may  be  25  or  even  50  years  before  the  last  of  all  the  various  canals  which  must  be 
constructed  from  the  river  to  irrigate  all  the  separate  tracts  that  go  to  make  up  the 
600,000  acres  have  been  completed.  The  point  is,  that  by  natural  development  and 
in  time,  all  the  land  will  be  reclaimed  if  water  is  provided.  It  can  neither  be 
reclaimed  nor  made  of  value  without  such  a  water  supply.  Twenty-five  million 
dollars  a  year  can  be  added  to  our  wealth  if  the  dam  is  built.  Nothing  can  be  added 
through  an  extension  of  reclamation  in  the  particular  area  of  reclamation  unless  it  is; 

The  dam  site. — There  are  two  possible  dam  sites.  Refusal  of  permission  to  make 
surveys  in  the  park  has  precluded  the  engineers  of  the  association  from  learning  which 
site  is  the  better  of  the  two.  One  of  these  is  but  a  few  hundred  feet  below  where  the 
river  leaves  the  lake  and  very  near  the  present  "Fishing  Bridge."  If  constructed 
here  the  dam  will  be  about  525  feet  long  and  20  to  25  feet  in  height  above  the  bed  of 
the  stream.  (The  dam  height  is  an  unknown  quantity  since  the  depth  of  the  stream 
at  dam  site,  and  the  fall  of  the  river  from  the  lake  to  the  site  can  only  be  determined 
by  surveys.)  The  other  site,  about  2£  miles  farther  down  the  river,  will  require  a  dam 
about  300  feet  long  and  some  5  feet  higher  than  the  "Fishing  Bridge"  side.  This 
extra  height  is  to  take  up  the  fall  in  the  river  for  the  2^  miles. 

At  the  "upper  site  there  is  an  unknown  depth  of  sand,  so  thai  the  dam  may  have  to 
go  a  considerable  distance  below  the  stream  bed  for  a  suitable  foundation  or  it  may 
even  have  to  be  erected  over  a  pile  foundation.  At  the  lower  site  the  river  bed  is 
apparently  solid  bedrock. 

Dam  and  bridge. — Which  ever  location  is  to  be  used  the  dam  will  necessarily  be  an 
artistic  concrete  structure  in  harmony  with  the  surroundings.  It  will  be  provided 
with  control  gates,  by  means  of  which  the  quantity  of  water  passing  through  can  be 
regulated.  No  water  will  jpass  over  the  dam  at  any  time.  Indeed  the  dam  crest 
will  be  from  5  to  10  feet  above  the  highest  level  of  the  lake  behind  it. 

The  road  in  from  the  Cody  entrance  passes  over  the  present  "Fishing  Bridge." 
This  is  a  rickety  old  pile  structure,  that  must  soon  be  replaced.  A  permanent,  artistic 
bridge  can  be  put  on  top  of  the  dam.  This  will  be  done  without  expense  to  the 
Government. 

Yellowstone  Lake. — Yellowstone  Lake  has  an  area  of  about  89,000  acres  or  nearly 
140  square  miles.  It  is  irregular  in  shape,  with  about  100  miles  of  shore  line.  Ex- 
cepting two  places,  one  at  the  south  end  where  the  Yellowstone  River  enters  and  the 
other  at  the  north  end  near  the  mouth  of  Pelican  Creek,  the  banks  are  comparatively 
steep.  Indeed,  for  the  greater  part  of  the  distance  along  the  shore  line  the  banks  are 
precipitate. 

Governmental  topography  reveals  that  any  such  raise  as  can  possibly  be  made  in 
the  elevation  of  the  lake  surface,  will  increase  the  submerged  area  only  a  negligible 
amount.  In  no  event  will  this  be  more  than  2  per  cent  and  probably  it  will  be  only 
a  fraction  of  1  per  cent.  Under  present  conditions  there  is  a  variation  of  about  6  feet 
in  the  level  of  the  lake  between  the  spring  period  when  an  excess  of  flood  waters 
have  gathered  and  the  summer  period  after  these  floods  have  run  out. 

Raising  the  lake. — The  volume  of  water  that  annually  drains  from  Lake  Yellowstone, 
averages  1,215,425  acre-feet.  (An  acre-foot  is  the  quantity  of  water  required  to  cover 
1  acre  a  foot  in  depth.)  The  lake  area  is  89,000  acres. 

Assuming  that  the  gates  in  the  dam  were  closed  and  remained  closed  an  entire  year 
(this  can  not  be  permitted  because  in  the  winter  a  sufficient  volume  of  water  must 
pass  to  protect  the  fish,  and  in  the  tourist  season  at  least  a  normal  flow  must  be  main- 
tained over  the  falls  and  through  the  Grand  Canyon),  the  water  would  pile  up  in  the 
and  raise  its  surface  a  total  of  13£  feet,  or  1\  feet  above  its  present  maximum  level. 
Making  a  minimum  allowance  for  the  water  that  must  be  permitted  to  pass  and  the 
maximum  amount  the  lake  can  be  raised  is  7  feet  above  its  present  high  level.  In 
actual  practice  the  plan  is  to  raise  it  a  little  if  any  above  this  high  water  level  but 
simply  to  hold  back  flood  water  sufficient  to  maintain  this  high  level  and  have  a 
reserve  supply  for  the  latter  part  of  the  irrigation  season  when  the  tributaries  can  not 
furnish  enough  water  to  the  river  to  meet  the  demand.  In  reality  the  dam  does 
nothing  more  than  equalize  the  flow,  so  that  instead  of  a  great  volume  of  water  going 
out  of  the  lake  during  a  15  or  20  day  period  in  the  spring  a  constant  flow  will  be  main- 
tained throughout  the  season. 

Effect  on  Yellowstone  Park. — A  dam  sufficient  to  regulate  and  control  the  river 
flow,  as  described,  is  the  only  structure  of  any  kind  that  will  be  required  in  the  park. 
The  first  canal  and  diversion  works  will  be  in  Yankee  Jim  Canyon,  15  miles  outside 
the  park  boundary.  Other  diversion  works  and  canal  systems  will  be  miles  farther 
•down  the  stream.  The  dam  will  be  surmounted  by  an  artistic  bridge,  now  badly 


136        PROPOSKI.)  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  WATER-POWER  ACT;. 

needed.  The  whole  will  be  an  attractive  structure,  quite  as  pleasing  and  harmonious 
as  the  beautiful  concrete  arch  bridge  that  now  spans  the  canyon  above  the  falls.  The 
aver;)  without  realization  that  il  i1-;  a  dam  site  at  all. 

The  np/>  Tories  circulated  by  our  eastern  friends,  who   are   unwittingly 

permitting  their  imaginations  to  run  riot,  are  to  the  effect  that  great  areas  of  forest 
are  to  be  I;  ugly  stretches  of  mud  bank  left  by  the  draining  of  the  lake: 

game  run  out  of  rhe  park:  the  paint  pot  md other  scenic  wonders  destroyed. 

This  is  all  pure  iiction.  The  lake  can  in  no  event  be  raised  more  than  a  couple  of 
feet  above  ition  to  which  high  winds  now  drive  the  waves  on  to  the  shore. 

Then  the  beach  thus -created.     If  a  few  come  within  the  line  of  a 

new1  .led  i hey  can  be  removed.     .\  •  variation  in  the  lake 

level  nix!'  not  an  acre  ol  'nk  along  the  entire 

hundred  o  Why  then  will  there  be  mud  ban;-  e  dam  is  built? 

•  would  be  no  mud  banks  if  the  lake  was  raised  20  feet.     In 

the  first  place  there  is  little  or  no  soil  around  the  shore.     It  is  mostly  either  formation 

dly,  a,  body  of  water  large  enough  to  have  vigorous  wave  action  never 

has  mud  banks.     The  waves  wear  the  soil  out  and  leave  only  sand  and  gravel.     The 

t  all  large  lakes  and  along  the  sea  shor-  i>le  evidence  of  this. 

dam c  by  the  concrete  bridge  at  the  canyon.     Why  will 

it  be  i  '  a  dam  and  bridge  at  the  lake?     The  paint  pots  are  a  hundred 

feet  or  more  in  elevation  above  the  maximum  height  to  which  the  lake  can  possibly 

be  raised  while  the  ay  on  iho  opposite  ^ide  of  a  mountain 

range. 

ficialfl  of  the  Int  •irtment,  while  admitting 

the  need  of  ad.i  er  c  mtrol  on  the  Yellow-lone,  adva  ea  that  it  should 

:   in   Yankee  Tim  <'anvon  outside  the  park,     Surveys  have  been  made  to 

•  ility  of  this  siie.  and  the  n;>  that  can  be  accom- 

plhli.  Lou  of  a  dam  here.     The-o  surveys  show  that  there  i.-  an  e\- 

i  dam  i  ro  i-'ct  high.     To  'build  it  higher  than  this  would  back  the  river 
up  over  the  town  of  Gardiner  and  into  the  park.      A   dam   this  height  will  provide 
;.old  the  flood  wi  ••••which  the  Hoods  would, 

continue  do\vn  the  stream  as  before,      it  will  conserve  sufficient  irrigation  w;i 
reclaim  only   I  •"><).<)<)(>  acre.-  of  land.     On  the  other  hand  it  will  submerge  Hi  miles  of 
railro,  lown  of  'iardiner  and   practically  block  the  northern  entrance 

Clearly  a  dam  at  this  p  able  and  there  is  no  other 

plac.  ire  ri\"er  that  aiV  ;  h e  dam  .- 

If  i.  unum  the  lake  water  would  cover  three  or  four  hot  springs.     A 

iMiiental  bulle-  ire  5,000  of  these  in  the  park.     This  probably  does 

not  indud  hundred  that  are  already  submerged  by  the  lake, 

may  [  p  trom  the  bottom. 

The  rould  be  submerged  a  part  of  the 

year.     Xear  it  an;  three  simihti1  cratere  at  slightly  higher  elevations.     The  lake  level 

13  not  to  leave  ;<  I'ish  ('<n\<>."     About 

half  a  mile  of  road  might  have  to  be  rai  from 

making  it  soft.     This  is  ilu-  sum  total  of  damage  that  can  possibly  be  done. 

On  the  other  hand  the  dam  will  hold  back  the  iloods  that  go  out  in  the  spring.     This 

volun  •!•  will  be  releu  much  increased 

!ls  and  through  the  Grand  <  anyon  all  during  the  tourist  season.     This 

will  tremendously  enhance  the  beauty  of  the  canyon  and  fails.     In  truth,  the  project 

is  not  a  damage  to  the  park  but  a  distinct  advantage  to  it. 

Who  id!!  '.ill  be  asked  to  grant  the  required  permit  to  the  State 

of  Montana.  Either  the  State  or  an  irrigation  district  composed  of  all  the  land  to  be 
led  by  the  dam,  will  undertake  the  construction  and  furnish  the  finances.  Xo 
water  will  be  rented  or  sold.  It  will  continue  to  be  had  by  appropriation  from  the 
river,  just  as  it  lias  in  the  past.  The  project  is  not  a  money-making  scheme  for  any 
group  of  individuals  any  more  than  a  municipal  water  plant  is  a  money-making 
scheme  for  the  property  owners  in  the  city  where  it  is  installed. 

The  argument  that  a  bad  precedent  will  be  established  has  little  weight.  There  is 
already  a  dam  in  Yosemite  Park,  by  congressional  permission.  After  this  dam  is 
built  no  other  dam  can  be  constructed  in  any  park  except  by  the  consent  of  Congress. 
Congress  is  not  going  to  permit  any  public  park  to  be  exploited.  The  people  who 
live  near  these  parks  and  have  an  interest  inspired  by  sentiment  as  well  as  an  even 
larger  interest  inspired  by  the  revenue  these  playgrounds  bring  are  not  willing 
that  Congress  permit  such  a  policy.  The  citizenship  of  Montana  asks  for  no  favoritism, 
but  for  simple  justice  in  the  granting  of  a  concession  that  means  a  billion  dollars  in 
future  development.  A  concession  that  costs  the  Government  nothing  and  may  be 
granted  without  harm  to  the  Yellowstone  Xational  Park. 

X 


